Case Name: Reginald S. TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. John A. ROWLEY, Warden; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-09
Citations: 316 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 08-6949
Parties: Reginald S. TUCKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John A. ROWLEY, Warden; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 316
Pages: 229–229

Head Matter:
Reginald S. TUCKER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. John A. ROWLEY, Warden; Attorney General of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 08-6949.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 27, 2009.
Decided: March 9, 2009.
Reginald S. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, for Appellees.
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald S. Tucker seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. 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 ap-pealability 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 Tucker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion to appoint counsel, 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.