Pittman v. Kelly ( 2010 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 09-7744
    LEONARD LEON PITTMAN,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    v.
    LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (1:09-cv-00675-JCC-JFA)
    Submitted:    January 19, 2010              Decided:   January 27, 2010
    Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Leonard Leon Pittman, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Leonard      Leon    Pittman        seeks    to     appeal   the    district
    court’s order dismissing as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2006)
    petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice
    or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                          See 
    28 U.S.C. § 2253
    (c)(1) (2006).            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)       (2006).        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 Pittman
    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
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 09-7744

Judges: Niemeyer, King, Davis

Filed Date: 1/27/2010

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024