The AI workspace for legal professionals
- Legal research with access to more than 1 million sources
- Document automation
- Matter management
- Hosted in the EU and Switzerland
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
The AI workspace for legal professionals
Try it free for 14 days (10 questions/day during trial)
07-6112•Charles F. Luster v. GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections
07-6112Court of Appeals for the Fourth CircuitJun 7, 2007
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6112
CHARLES F. LUSTER,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (2:06-cv-00247-RBS)
Submitted: May 31, 2007 Decided: June 7, 2007
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Charles F. Luster, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
-- 1 of 2 --
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Charles F. Luster seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,
537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484
(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have
independently reviewed the record and conclude that Luster has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Luster’s motion
for a new trial, deny a certificate of appealability, 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
-- 2 of 2 --
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.