Case Name: Lawrence Donal HOWERTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey DILLMAN, Warden; Gene M. Johnson, Director, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-01-28
Citations: 409 F. App'x 617
Docket Number: No. 09-7979
Parties: Lawrence Donal HOWERTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey DILLMAN, Warden; Gene M. Johnson, Director, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 409
Pages: 617–618

Head Matter:
Lawrence Donal HOWERTON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jeffrey DILLMAN, Warden; Gene M. Johnson, Director, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7979.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 19, 2010.
Decided Jan. 28, 2010.
Lawrence Donal Howerton, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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. The order is not appeal-able 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (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