Case Name: Robert VIZZINI, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-05-06
Citations: 96 F. App'x 157
Docket Number: No. 03-7825
Parties: Robert VIZZINI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 96
Pages: 157–158

Head Matter:
Robert VIZZINI, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, MARYLAND HOUSE OF CORRECTION, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7825.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2004.
Decided May 6, 2004.
Mark Lawrence Gitomer, Law Office of Mark Gitomer, Owings Mills, Maryland, for Appellant. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Robert Vizzini, a Maryland inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order granting Respondent's motion for reconsideration and dismissing as untimely Vizzini's petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Vizzini 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