Jason Clem v. Gene Johnson, No. 09-7650 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7650 JASON RICHARD-CHARLES CLEM, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00015-sgw-mfu) Submitted: February 25, 2010 Decided: April 7, 2010 Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Jason Richard-Charles Clem, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Jason Richard-Charles Clem seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). not issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a satisfies jurists constitutional A certificate of appealability will substantial right. 28 this would claims by See 28 showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2006). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of debatable the or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Clem has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. deny Clem s motion for the appointment of counsel. We further We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.