Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06131/USCOURTS-ca4-15-06131-1/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Lorenzo Butler
Appellant
Gregory Holloway
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6131

CHARLES LORENZO BUTLER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

GREGORY HOLLOWAY, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Liam O’Grady, District 

Judge. (1:14-cv-00243-LO-TRJ)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 19, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Charles Lorenzo Butler, Appellant Pro Se. Craig Stallard, 

Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6131 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Charles Lorenzo Butler seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

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

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). 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 

Butler has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

a certificate of appealability, deny Butler’s motion for 

appointment of counsel, deny leave 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 

Appeal: 15-6131 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 2 of 3
3

materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

Appeal: 15-6131 Doc: 19 Filed: 10/19/2015 Pg: 3 of 3