Case Name: Bruman Stalin ALVAREZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden, Jessup Correctional Institution; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-14
Citations: 227 F. App'x 284
Docket Number: No. 06-7951
Parties: Bruman Stalin ALVAREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden, Jessup Correctional Institution; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 227
Pages: 284–285

Head Matter:
Bruman Stalin ALVAREZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James SMITH, Warden, Jessup Correctional Institution; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 06-7951.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 10, 2007.
Decided: May 14, 2007.
Bruman Stalin Alvarez, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Bruman Stalin Alvarez, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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, 587 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 Alvarez 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.