U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2019

LeTory Jones v. Richard Graham

LeTory Jones v. Richard Graham
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided August 23, 2019

LeTory Jones v. Richard Graham

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-6713

LETORY ANTYAN JONES, Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN RICHARD GRAHAM; MARYLAND ATTORNEY GENERAL, Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.

Catherine C. Blake, District Judge. (1:17-cv-03523-CCB)

Submitted: August 20, 2019 Decided: August 23, 2019

Before FLOYD and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeTory Antyan Jones, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: LeTory Antyan Jones 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 Jones has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, 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 materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.