Case Name: Lemar Jamie ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-14
Citations: 119 F. App'x 523
Docket Number: No. 04-6797
Parties: Lemar Jamie ANDERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 523–524

Head Matter:
Lemar Jamie ANDERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6797.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2004.
Decided: Jan. 14, 2005.
LeMar Jamie Anderson, Appellant pro se.
Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
LeMar Jamie Anderson 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 appeal-able 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 constitution al 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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