Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06027/USCOURTS-ca4-10-06027-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-6027

WILLIE D. WORLEY, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

TIMOTHY MCKOY, Administrator, Franklin Correctional Center,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, 

Senior District Judge. (3:09-cv-00484-GCM)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie D. Worley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 10-6027 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 1 of 3
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie D. Worley, Jr., seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or 

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). In his 

informal brief, Worley has failed to address the district 

court’s finding that his § 2254 petition was untimely filed. 

Therefore, Worley has forfeited appellate review of the district 

court’s ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a 

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

Appeal: 10-6027 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 2 of 3
3

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED

Appeal: 10-6027 Doc: 9 Filed: 03/24/2010 Pg: 3 of 3