Monroe v. Johnson

Fourth Circuit

Monroe v. Johnson

172 F. App'x 544

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedMarch 28, 2006

Docket05-7392

StatusUnpublished

This text of 172 F. App'x 544 (Monroe v. Johnson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Monroe v. Johnson, 172 F. App'x 544 (4th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Julian Kenneth Armel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 in both cases and conclude that Armel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss both appeals. 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

PER CURIAM:

In these consolidated appeals, Julian Kenneth Armel, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders accepting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and denying relief on his petitions filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 in both cases and conclude that Armel has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates of appealability and dismiss both appeals. 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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

172 F. App'x 544, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/monroe-v-johnson-ca4-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack