Case Name: Larry Eugene SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-31
Citations: 272 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 08-6104
Parties: Larry Eugene SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 272
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
Larry Eugene SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6104.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: March 31, 2008.
Larry Eugene Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Eugene Smith, 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 ap-pealability. 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 reasonable jurists would find that any assess ment 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 Smith has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certifícate 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.