Case Name: Wesley Delano STEVENS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-04
Citations: 208 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 06-7447
Parties: Wesley Delano STEVENS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter UNPUBLISHED
Wesley Delano STEVENS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-7447.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 4, 2006.
Wesley Delano Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin William Keller, Jr., North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wesley Delano Stevens 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 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 Stevens 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.