Ricky Miller v. Gene Johnson, No. 10-6994 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-6994 RICKY LEE MILLER, Petitioner - Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. M. Hannah Lauck, Magistrate Judge. (3:09-cv-00665-MHL) Submitted: December 16, 2010 Decided: December 28, 2010 Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ricky Lee Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Alice Theresa Armstrong, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ricky Lee Miller seeks to appeal the magistrate judge s * order denying as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a A certificate of appealability will not substantial constitutional right. See 28 U.S.C. showing of the denial 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). of a When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 Cockrell, (2000); (2003). see Miller-El v. 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 529 U.S. at 484-85. Slack, We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts * This case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2006). 2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.