Case Name: Charles DEVILLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-30
Citations: 389 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 10-6164
Parties: Charles DEVILLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 389
Pages: 317–318

Head Matter:
Charles DEVILLE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6164.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 22, 2010.
Decided: July 30, 2010.
Charles Deville, Appellant Pro Se. Leah A. Darron, Office of the Attorney-General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Deville seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that De-ville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Deville's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.