Case Name: Gerald Costello WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Joseph Curran, Jr., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-01
Citations: 225 F. App'x 95
Docket Number: No. 06-7940
Parties: Gerald Costello WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Joseph Curran, Jr., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 95–95

Head Matter:
Gerald Costello WATKINS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Joseph Curran, Jr., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7940.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 1, 2007.
Gerald Costello Watkins, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Costello Watkins 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 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 Watkins 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.