Case Name: Jaime Reyes SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-17
Citations: 115 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 04-7502
Parties: Jaime Reyes SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Jaime Reyes SOTO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sidney HARKLEROAD, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7502.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2004.
Decided Dec. 17, 2004.
Jaime Reyes Soto, Appellant pro se.
Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jaime Reyes Soto seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 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 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 Soto 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