Case Name: Douglas Leigh FAUCONIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections; Mary Ann Saar, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; 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: 2007-06-20
Citations: 230 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 06-8021
Parties: Douglas Leigh FAUCONIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections; Mary Ann Saar, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Joseph Curran, Jr., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 230
Pages: 299–299

Head Matter:
Douglas Leigh FAUCONIER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William SONDERVAN, Commissioner of Corrections; Mary Ann Saar, Secretary of the Department of Public Safety and Correctional Services; Joseph Curran, Jr., The Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-8021.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2007.
Decided: June 20, 2007.
Douglas Leigh Fauconier, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Leigh Fauconier seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his petition 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 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 Fauconier 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.