Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Sturgis v. Stouffer, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    7 views2 pages
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Lance D. Sturgis v. J. Michael Stouffer et al. The court dismissed Sturgis's appeal of the district court's ruling that his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was time-barred. The court also denied Sturgis a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right or that procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court dismissed the appeal and dispensed with oral argument.

    Original Description:

    Filed: 2005-05-17 Precedential Status: Non-Precedential Docket: 04-7864

    Copyright

    © Public Domain

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Lance D. Sturgis v. J. Michael Stouffer et al. The court dismissed Sturgis's appeal of the district court's ruling that his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was time-barred. The court also denied Sturgis a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right or that procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court dismissed the appeal and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    7 views2 pages

    Sturgis v. Stouffer, 4th Cir. (2005)

    Uploaded by

    Scribd Government Docs
    This document is an unpublished opinion from the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in the case of Lance D. Sturgis v. J. Michael Stouffer et al. The court dismissed Sturgis's appeal of the district court's ruling that his habeas corpus petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was time-barred. The court also denied Sturgis a certificate of appealability, finding that he did not demonstrate the denial of a constitutional right or that procedural rulings were debatable or wrong. The court dismissed the appeal and dispensed with oral argument.

    Copyright:

    Public Domain
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 2

    UNPUBLISHED

    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS


    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

    No. 04-7864

    LANCE D. STURGIS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    J. MICHAEL STOUFFER; ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE
    STATE OF MARYLAND,
    Respondents - Appellees.

    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-04712-8-RWT)

    Submitted:

    Mary 12, 2005

    Decided:

    May 17, 2005

    Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

    Lance D. Sturgis, Appellant Pro Se.


    John Joseph Curran, Jr.,
    Attorney General, Anne Norman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
    OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees

    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.


    See Local Rule 36(c).

    PER CURIAM:
    Lance D. Sturgis, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
    district courts order dismissing his petition filed under 28
    U.S.C. 2254 (2000) as time-barred under 28 U.S.C. 2244(d)(1)
    (2000).
    judge

    The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or


    issues

    certificate

    of

    appealability.

    28

    U.S.C.

    2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000).

    A prisoner satisfies this

    standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that


    his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
    procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
    wrong.

    See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336 (2003);

    Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d
    676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).
    record

    and

    conclude

    that

    We have independently reviewed the


    Sturgis

    has

    not

    made

    the

    requisite

    showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny


    Sturgiss motion for summary judgment, 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

    - 2 -

    You might also like