Glenn Lawhorn, Jr. v. Tracy Ray

435 F. App'x 291
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedJune 21, 2011
Docket11-6323
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 435 F. App'x 291 (Glenn Lawhorn, Jr. v. Tracy Ray) 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
Glenn Lawhorn, Jr. v. Tracy Ray, 435 F. App'x 291 (4th Cir. 2011).

Opinion

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Glenn Calvin Lawhorn, Jr., 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)(A) (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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lawhorn 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 *292 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

Related

Lawhorn v. Ray
181 L. Ed. 2d 497 (Supreme Court, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
435 F. App'x 291, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/glenn-lawhorn-jr-v-tracy-ray-ca4-2011.