Lonnie Boone v. St. Brides Correctional Center
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999795456-2]; denying updating certificate of appealability status Originating case number: 1:15-cv-01608-LO-IDD Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: L Boone. [16-6375]
Pg: 1 of 3
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
LONNIE LORENZO BOONE,
Petitioner - Appellant,
ST. BRIDES CORRECTIONAL CENTER,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District Judge.
June 21, 2016
June 23, 2016
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Lonnie Lorenzo Boone, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 3
Lonnie Lorenzo Boone seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A)
A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a
substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”
U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).
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 (2000); see Miller-El v.
Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).
When the district court
denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate
both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that
Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Boone has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.
We dispense with oral argument
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
Pg: 3 of 3
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the
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?