Lorenzo Davis v. William Williams, No. 08-8477 (4th Cir. 2009)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-8477 LORENZO MAURICE DAVIS, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WILLIAM L. WILLIAMS, Warden; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:04-cv-03908-CCB) Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lorenzo Maurice Davis, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lorenzo court s order petition. Maurice denying Davis relief seeks on his to 28 appeal U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). absent constitutional prisoner district § 2254 (2006) The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. issue the a A certificate of appealability will not substantial right. satisfies reasonable jurists constitutional See 28 U.S.C. 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that district of (2006). A demonstrating any assessment court is a that of the debatable or 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 that Davis 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.