Lawrence Howerton, Jr. v. Jeffrey Dillman, No. 09-7979 (4th Cir. 2010)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-7979 LAWRENCE DONAL HOWERTON, JR., Petitioner Appellant, v. JEFFREY DILLMAN, Warden; GENE M. JOHNSON, Director, Respondents Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (7:09-cv-00237-sgw-mfu) Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 28, 2010 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Donal Howerton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Lawrence Donal Howerton, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely filed. a circuit justice appealability. certificate or See of The order is not appealable unless judge 28 issues U.S.C. appealability a certificate § 2253(c)(1) will not (2006). issue absent of A a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. 28 U.S.C. standard by § 2253(c)(2) (2006). demonstrating that A prisoner reasonable satisfies jurists would this find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is 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). conclude We that have Howerton independently has not made reviewed the the record requisite and showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.