Case Name: Eric KEYS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-08
Citations: 148 F. App'x 191
Docket Number: No. 05-6723
Parties: Eric KEYS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 148
Pages: 191–192

Head Matter:
Eric KEYS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6723.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 8, 2005.
Eric Keys, Appellant Pro Se. Robert H. Anderson, III, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Eric Keys seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the magistrate judge's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the magistrate judge are also debatable or wrong. See 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 Keys has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1) (2000).