Case ID: f-appx_112/html/0930-02.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

Daniel ALLEN, Sr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Raymond SMITH, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee, and Theodis Beck, Secretary of North Carolina Corrections, Respondent.
    No. 04-6587.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Oct. 18, 2004.
    Decided Nov. 18, 2004.
    
      Daniel Allen, Sr., Appellant pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Daniel Allen, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a 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, 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).

By failing to challenge in his informal brief the district court’s finding regarding timeliness, Allen has waived his right to challenge the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition as untimely. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Moreover, our independent review of the record reflects that his petition was indeed untimely. 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