Case Name: Daniel Christopher HERBERT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-29
Citations: 275 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 08-6087
Parties: Daniel Christopher HERBERT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 275
Pages: 259–259

Head Matter:
Daniel Christopher HERBERT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6087.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2008.
Decided: April 29, 2008.
Daniel Christopher Herbert, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Daniel Christopher Herbert 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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. See Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Herbert has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Herbert's motion for a certificate of ap-pealability 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.