Case Name: Daryl Steven HOLLY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-23
Citations: 117 F. App'x 890
Docket Number: No. 04-7435
Parties: Daryl Steven HOLLY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 117
Pages: 890–891

Head Matter:
Daryl Steven HOLLY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7435.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 16, 2004.
Decided Dec. 23, 2004.
Daryl Steven Holly, Appellant pro se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Daryl Steven Holly, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and denying reconsideration. The orders are 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 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Holly 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.