Case Name: Shawn Conoray KING, Petitioner - Appellant, v. Stanley K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-29
Citations: 124 F. App'x 787
Docket Number: No. 04-7645
Parties: Shawn Conoray KING, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Stanley K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 787–788

Head Matter:
Shawn Conoray KING, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Stanley K. YOUNG, Warden, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 04-7645.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2005.
Decided: March 29, 2005.
Shawn Conoray King, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Conoray King, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. This order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 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 (4th Cir.2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that King has not shown the district court's procedural ruling to be debatable or wrong. 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 eourt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
In fact, King does not even challenge the court's finding of untimeliness on appeal.