Case Name: William T. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James C. CACHERIS, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-23
Citations: 103 F. App'x 515
Docket Number: No. 03-7343, 03-7412
Parties: William T. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James C. CACHERIS, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 515–515

Head Matter:
William T. ROBINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James C. CACHERIS, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 03-7343, 03-7412.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 23, 2004.
Decided: July 23, 2004.
William T. Robinson, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, William T. Robinson, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability is required to appeal the district court's order denying Robinson's post-judgment motion. See Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363 (4th Cir.2004) (No. 03-6146). 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 Robinson 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