Case ID: f-appx_103/html/0754-01.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

Daniel T. THOMAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Sussex I State Prison, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-6707.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: July 2, 2004.
    Decided: Aug. 3, 2004.
    Daniel T. Thomas, Appellant pro se.
    Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel T. Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. Thomas cannot appeal this order unless a circuit judge or justice issues a certificate of appealability, and a certificate of appeal-ability will not issue absent a “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A habeas appellant meets 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Thomas 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