Case Name: Jerold Alan HARRIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-18
Citations: 318 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 09-6062
Parties: Jerold Alan HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Jerold Alan HARRIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, III, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 09-6062.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 12, 2009.
Decided: March 18, 2009.
Jerold Alan Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before MOTZ and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jerold Alan Harris seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dis miss 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.