Case ID: f-appx_178/html/0225-01.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

Clarence Jay LYNCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
    No. 05-7815.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted April 7, 2006.
    Decided April 27, 2006.
    Clarence Jay Lynch, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
   Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Clarence Jay Lynch seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 that Lynch 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. 
      
       Although the notice of appeal was filed more than thirty days after the district court’s decision, the appeal is deemed timely because there was no separate document reflecting the entry of judgment, as required by Fed. R.Civ.P. 58. See Hughes v. Halifax County Sch. Bd., 823 F.2d 832, 835 (4th Cir.1987)