Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07744/USCOURTS-ca4-09-07744-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Loretta K. Kelly
Appellee
Leonard Leon Pittman
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-7744

LEONARD LEON PITTMAN, 

 Petitioner - Appellant, 

 v. 

LORETTA K. KELLY, Warden, 

 Respondent - Appellee. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior 

District Judge. (1:09-cv-00675-JCC-JFA) 

Submitted: January 19, 2010 Decided: January 27, 2010 

Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Leonard Leon Pittman, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 

Appeal: 09-7744 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 1 of 2
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Leonard Leon Pittman 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. 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 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 Pittman

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: 09-7744 Doc: 9 Filed: 01/27/2010 Pg: 2 of 2