Case Name: Roger Carl BERRY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Prison, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-05
Citations: 179 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 06-6038
Parties: Roger Carl BERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
Roger Carl BERRY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Prison, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6038.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2006.
Decided May 5, 2006.
Roger Carl Berry, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roger Carl Berry, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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 rea sonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Berry 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.