Scribd Logo
Carica

Benvenuto in Scribd!

  • Lawrence v. Sutton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Caricato da

    Scribd Government Docs
    2 visualizzazioni2 pagine
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Milton Leroy Lawrence's appeal of the district court's orders dismissing his untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and denying his motions for reconsideration and certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Lawrence did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismissed Lawrence's appeal.

    Descrizione originale:

    Filed: 2008-03-27 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 07-7447

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Formati disponibili

    PDF o leggi online da Scribd

    Hai trovato utile questo documento?

    Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

    Segnala questo documento
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Milton Leroy Lawrence's appeal of the district court's orders dismissing his untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and denying his motions for reconsideration and certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Lawrence did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismissed Lawrence's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    2 visualizzazioni2 pagine

    Lawrence v. Sutton, 4th Cir. (2008)

    Caricato da

    Scribd Government Docs
    The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit dismissed Milton Leroy Lawrence's appeal of the district court's orders dismissing his untimely 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas corpus petition and denying his motions for reconsideration and certificate of appealability. The court independently reviewed the record and concluded that Lawrence did not make the requisite substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right required to issue a certificate of appealability. As a result, the court dismissed Lawrence's appeal.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Scarica in formato PDF o leggi online su Scribd
    Segnala contenuti inappropriati
    di 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 07-7447

    MILTON LEROY LAWRENCE,


    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    ERNEST R. SUTTON,
    Respondent - Appellee,
    and
    STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA,
    Respondent.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
    Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (5:06-hc-02131-BO)

    Submitted:

    March 25, 2008

    Decided:

    March 27, 2008

    Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Milton Leroy Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,


    III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
    Appellee.

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

    PER CURIAM:
    Milton

    Leroy

    Lawrence

    seeks

    to

    appeal

    the

    district

    courts orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2000)


    petition and denying his motions for reconsideration and for a
    certificate of appealability. The orders are not appealable unless
    a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
    See 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. See
    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 Lawrence has not made the requisite showing.
    Accordingly, we 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 -

    Potrebbero piacerti anche