Case Name: Reginald HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-09-01
Citations: 142 F. App'x 195
Docket Number: No. 05-6535
Parties: Reginald HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 142
Pages: 195–196

Head Matter:
Reginald HOLLINGSWORTH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of North Carolina, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6535.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 25, 2005.
Decided: Sept. 1, 2005.
Reginald Hollingsworth, Appellant pro se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Reginald Hollingsworth seeks to appeal from the district court's order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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 Hollingsworth 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