Case Name: Rudolph Lee CRAWLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-08-24
Citations: 235 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 07-6690
Parties: Rudolph Lee CRAWLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 235
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
Rudolph Lee CRAWLEY, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, PROBATION AND PAROLE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 07-6690.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 10, 2007.
Decided: Aug. 24, 2007.
Rudolph Lee Crawley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Rudolph Lee Crawley, Jr., 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 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 sat isfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Crawley 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.