Case Name: Michael Eugene REED, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Erik A. HOOKS, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-30
Citations: 704 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 17-6771
Parties: Michael Eugene REED, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Erik A. HOOKS, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges,
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 302–302

Head Matter:
Michael Eugene REED, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Erik A. HOOKS, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6771
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: November 30, 2017
Michael Eugene Reed, II, Appellant Pro Se. .
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges,

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Eugene Reed, II, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). 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, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Reed 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED