Eduard Lorenz v. Charles Davis, III, No. 08-7598 (4th Cir. 2008)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-7598 EDUARD LORENZ, Petitioner - Appellant, v. CHARLES E. DAVIS, III, Respondent Appellee, and CHAIRMAN, VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, Respondent. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior District Judge. (1:07-cv-00940-JCC-TCB) Submitted: November 3, 2008 Decided: November 17, 2008 Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eduard Lorenz, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eduard Lorenz seeks to appeal the district court s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate § 2253(c)(1) (2000). issue absent constitutional prisoner reasonable a substantial right. jurists appealability. See 28 U.S.C. A certificate of appealability will not satisfies constitutional of 28 this would claims by showing U.S.C. the the denial § 2253(c)(2) standard find of by that (2000). demonstrating any district of assessment court is a A that of debatable the 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 Lorenz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. Lorenz s motion for injunctive relief. deny a We deny We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 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.