Antwan Churchill v. Roderick Sowers, No. 08-7234 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7234 ANTWAN JAMES CHURCHILL, Petitioner - Appellant, v. RODERICK R. SOWERS, Warden; DOUGLAS General for the State of Maryland, GANSLER, Attorney Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (1:08cv-00591-AMD) Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 29, 2008 Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Antwan James Churchill, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Antwan James Churchill seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. or judge The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner a substantial right. jurists constitutional appealability. 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies reasonable of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2000). demonstrating any assessment court is a A that of the 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 Churchill has not made the requisite showing. certificate dispense of with appealability oral argument and Accordingly, we deny a dismiss because the the appeal. facts and We legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.