Corey Johnson v. M. Vargo, No. 12-7909 (4th Cir. 2013)

Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7909 COREY E. JOHNSON, Petitioner Appellant, v. M. VARGO, Warden, Sussex 2 Prison, Respondent Appellee, and UNKNOWN, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:12-cv-00608-JRS) Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013 Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Corey E. Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Corey E. Johnson seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition and denying unless a reconsideration. circuit appealability. justice The or judge orders are issues a not appealable certificate 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). of A certificate of appealability will not issue absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this reasonable jurists would assessment of constitutional wrong. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) the standard find by that demonstrating the claims district is that court s debatable or Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller- El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003). 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. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 2 presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 3