Case Name: Belton HARRIS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; John L. Lamanna, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-22
Citations: 180 F. App'x 480
Docket Number: No. 05-7945
Parties: Belton HARRIS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; John L. Lamanna, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 480–481

Head Matter:
Belton HARRIS, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; John L. Lamanna, Warden; Henry Dargan McMaster, Attorney General of South Carolina, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7945.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 16, 2006.
Decided: May 22, 2006.
Belton Harris, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Belton Harris, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order and judgment adopting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation and finding his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition untimely. 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 district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude Belton 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