Case Name: Raymond FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; Mark Williamson, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-05
Citations: 104 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 04-6634
Parties: Raymond FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; Mark Williamson, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
Raymond FRAZIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William S. HAINES, Warden, Huttonsville Correctional Center; Mark Williamson, Warden, Denmar Correctional Center, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6634.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 5, 2004.
Raymond Frazier, Appellant pro se.
Dawn Ellen Warfield, Office of the Attorney General of West Virginia, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Frazier seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 ap-pealability 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Frazier 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