Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06445/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06445-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6445

VAN THORNTON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

WARDEN WATSON,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior 

District Judge. (7:10-cv-00073-jct-mfu)

Submitted: June 17, 2010 Decided: June 28, 2010

Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Van Thornton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6445 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Van Thornton seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record 

and conclude that Thornton has not made the requisite showing.*

 * Our conclusion that Thornton has not made the showing 

necessary to warrant issuance of a certificate of appealability 

is supported by the Supreme Court’s recent opinion in Holland v. 

Florida, No. 09-5327, slip op. (U.S. June 14, 2010).

 

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave 

Appeal: 10-6445 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

to proceed in forma pauperis, 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

Appeal: 10-6445 Doc: 13 Filed: 06/28/2010 Pg: 3 of 3