Case Name: Darryl Leon HUNTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-22
Citations: 266 F. App'x 239
Docket Number: No. 07-7194
Parties: Darryl Leon HUNTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 239–240

Head Matter:
Darryl Leon HUNTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-7194.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 5, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2008.
Darryl Leon Hunter, Appellant Pro Se. Rosemary Virginia Bourne, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Darryl Leon Hunter 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 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 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 Hunter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.
The case was decided by a magistrate judge with the parties' consent pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).