Case Name: Don RHEW, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-13
Citations: 158 F. App'x 410
Docket Number: Nos. 05-6107, 05-6189
Parties: Don RHEW, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 158
Pages: 410–411

Head Matter:
Don RHEW, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary, North Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Nos. 05-6107, 05-6189.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 23, 2005.
Decided Dec. 13, 2005.
Don Rhew, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Don Rhew seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rhew has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the ap peals. 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