Case Name: Anson D. LOONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-30
Citations: 183 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 05-7934
Parties: Anson D. LOONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 183
Pages: 316–317

Head Matter:
Anson D. LOONEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-7934.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2006.
Decided: May 30, 2006.
Anson D. Looney, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Lee Parrish, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Anson Looney seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition on the ground that it was untimely. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are likewise debatable. See 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 Looney has not shown error in the district court's dispositive procedural ruling. Ac cordingly, we deny Looney's motion for 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