Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07014/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07014-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Jack Lee
Appellee
Claude Linden Rose
Appellant

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7014

CLAUDE LINDEN ROSE,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

JACK LEE, Superintendent, Middle River

Regional Jail,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Jackson L. Kiser, Senior

District Judge. (7:06-cv-00471-JLK)

Submitted: December 13, 2007 Decided: December 19, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Linden Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant

Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7014 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/19/2007 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Claude Linden Rose seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.

The order is not appealable 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 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). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rose has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rose’s motion for

appointment of counsel, 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

Appeal: 07-7014 Doc: 18 Filed: 12/19/2007 Pg: 2 of 2