Case Name: James F. HARDISON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William L. WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-10
Citations: 123 F. App'x 112
Docket Number: No. 04-8029
Parties: James F. HARDISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William L. WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 112–112

Head Matter:
James F. HARDISON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William L. WILLIAMS, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 04-8029.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2005.
Decided March 10, 2005.
James F. Hardison, Appellant pro se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
James F. Hardison seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 § 2254 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 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 Hardison 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