Case Name: David PINELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden OATES, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-01-23
Citations: 506 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 12-7871
Parties: David PINELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden OATES, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 506
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
David PINELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden OATES, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-7871.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2013.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2013.
David Pinell, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Pinell seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Pinell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pinell's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.