London v. Johnson , 158 F. App'x 501 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7276
    LARRY L. LONDON,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department
    of Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelly, Jr., District
    Judge. (CA-04-746-2)
    Submitted:   December 12, 2005         Decided:     December 28, 2005
    Before LUTTIG, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Larry L. London, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
    OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
    Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Larry L. London seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order dismissing as untimely 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
    , 336-38 (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 London 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: 05-7276

Citation Numbers: 158 F. App'x 501

Judges: Luttig, Shedd, Duncan

Filed Date: 12/28/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024