Case Name: Alvin JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden James SMITH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-25
Citations: 251 F. App'x 841
Docket Number: No. 06-7717
Parties: Alvin JACKSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden James SMITH, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 841–842

Head Matter:
Alvin JACKSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden James SMITH, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7717.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 21, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 25, 2007.
Alvin Jackson, Appellant pro se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Alvin Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable 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 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 Jackson 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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.