John Hill v. Gene Johnson, No. 14-6550 (4th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6550 JOHN HILL, Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. No. 14-6553 JOHN HILL, Petitioner Appellant, v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent - Appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:05-cv-00015-AWA-TEM; 2:05-cv-00086-AWA-TEM) Submitted: August 28, 2014 Decided: September 3, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Hill, Appellant Pro Se. David Michael Uberman, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 2 PER CURIAM: John Hill seeks to appeal the district court s orders denying relief on his motions to set aside judgments in two 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) proceedings. unless a circuit justice judge appealability. See certificate appealability of 28 or The orders are not appealable U.S.C. issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1)(A) will not of (2012). A absent a issue substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). relief on the demonstrating district merits, that court s debatable or a prisoner reasonable assessment wrong. When the district court denies satisfies jurists would of the v. McDaniel, Slack this standard find constitutional 529 U.S. by that the claims is 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss the appeals. dispense with oral argument because 3 the facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 4
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.
