Lorenzo Ivey v. Loretta Kelly
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LORENZO JAMES IVEY, Petitioner - Appellant, v. LORETTA K. KELLY, Respondent - Appellee, and COMMONWEALTH, Respondent.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00917-AJT-IDD)
February 28, 2011
March 9, 2011
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lorenzo James Ivey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Lorenzo James Ivey seeks to appeal the district
court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). issue absent "a
A certificate of appealability will not showing of the denial of a
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006).
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. 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38
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. 529 U.S. at 484-85. and conclude that Slack,
We have independently reviewed the record Ivey has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny Ivey's motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. dispense with oral argument because presented the in facts the and We
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?