Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07979/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07979-0/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UNPUBLISHED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. 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7979 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

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. The order is not appealable unless 

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of 

appealability. See 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). A prisoner satisfies this 

standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 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 MillerEl 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 Howerton has not made the requisite 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

Appeal: 09-7979 Doc: 12 Filed: 01/28/2010 Pg: 2 of 2