Case Name: Anthony Michelle KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent Brad PERITT, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-05-29
Citations: 521 F. App'x 247
Docket Number: No. 13-6538
Parties: Anthony Michelle KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent Brad PERITT, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 521
Pages: 247–248

Head Matter:
Anthony Michelle KING, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent Brad PERITT, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-6538.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2013.
Decided: May 29, 2013.
Anthony Michelle King, Appellant pro se.
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Judge Motz did not participate in consideration of this case. The opinion is Hied by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Michelle King seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 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 v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that King has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.