Case Name: William T. HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-09
Citations: 205 F. App'x 166
Docket Number: No. 06-7402
Parties: William T. HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 205
Pages: 166–167

Head Matter:
William T. HENDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7402.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 23, 2006.
Decided: Nov. 9, 2006.
William T. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William T. Henderson seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition, and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ.P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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 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 Henderson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Henderson's motion for appointment of counsel, 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.