Eduard Lorenz v. Charles Davis, III
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
EDUARD LORENZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES E. DAVIS, III, Respondent Appellee, and CHAIRMAN, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00940-JCC-TCB)
November 3, 2008
November 17, 2008
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Eduard Lorenz, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Eduard Lorenz 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. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing U.S.C. standard find the that of the denial of a A that the or
constitutional prisoner reasonable
right." this would by
§ 2253(c)(2) by any
demonstrating assessment is of
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 Lorenz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Lorenz's motion for injunctive relief.
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?