Case ID: f-appx_55/html/0670-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

William HARRISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ronald JONES, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 02-7376.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Jan. 24, 2003.
    Decided Feb. 10, 2003.
    
      William Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Appelton Reeves, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
   PER CURIAM.

William Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Harrison must make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the petitioner “must demonstrate both (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’ ” Rose v. Lee 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.2001) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)). Upon examination of Harrison’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court correctly concluded the petition was untimely filed. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Harrison v. Jones, No. CA-99-109-5-2MU (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 30, 2002, entered Sept. 3, 2002). 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. 
      
       Because the district court correctly found that Harrison's petition was time-barred, we do not address the court’s additional holding that the petition was without merit.