Milton Lawrence v. US

Filing 920090424

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8534 MILTON LEROY LAWRENCE, Petitioner Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; TERRENCE W. BOYLE, Judge, Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief District Judge. (5:08-hc-02172-FL) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Milton Leroy Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Milton appeal the Leroy Lawrence, court's a state prisoner, relief seeks on to his district order denying 28 U.S.C. 2241 (2006) petition. unless a circuit justice or The order is not appealable issues a certificate of judge appealability. 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." (2006). 28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) 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. 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 of requisite showing. and Accordingly, dismiss the the we deny a We legal certificate dispense appealability oral argument appeal. and with because facts contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

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?