Edward Egan, Sr. v. Gene Johnson, No. 10-7302 (4th Cir. 2011)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 10-7302 EDWARD JAMES EGAN, SR., Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE JOHNSON, Corrections, Director of Virginia Department of Respondent Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, Chief District Judge. (7:10-cv-00336-gec-mfu) Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 20, 2011 Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edward James Egan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Edward James Egan, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent a constitutional of appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. 28 showing U.S.C. of the denial § 2253(c)(2). of When a 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. and conclude that Slack, We have independently reviewed the record Egan 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 and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3
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.
