Joshua v. Johnson

94 F. App'x 179
Procedural entryThis page is a short order in Joshua v. Johnson. Read the opinion of the Court — 94 F. App'x 178
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit·Decided April 15, 2004·No. 04-6113·Unpublished

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Jerry Glenn Joshua seeks to appeal the district court’s order granting his motion to dismiss without prejudice his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Joshua has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Joshua’s motion for authorization to prepare a transcript at government expense, deny his motion to proceed in forma pauperis, deny his motions for general relief, deny his motion to *180 dismiss the indictment, deny a certifícate of appealabihty, and dismiss the appeal. 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

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Joshua v. Johnson, 94 F. App'x 179 (4th Cir. 2004).

94 F. App'x 179 (Joshua v. Johnson) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Slack v. McDaniel
529 U.S. 473 (Supreme Court, 2000)
Miller-El v. Cockrell
537 U.S. 322 (Supreme Court, 2003)
Rose v. Lee
252 F.3d 676 (Fourth Circuit, 2001)