Case Name: Antonio Francis BUCK, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-06
Citations: 96 F. App'x 158
Docket Number: No. 04-6321
Parties: Antonio Francis BUCK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 158–159

Head Matter:
Antonio Francis BUCK, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6321.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 29, 2004.
Decided May 6, 2004.
Antonio Francis Buck, Appellant pro se. Jerry Walter Kilgore, Attorney General, Michael Thomas Judge, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Antonio Francis Buck, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 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 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 Buck 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