Case Name: Alfred Ray STROUPE, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Warden of Bland Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-11-06
Citations: 204 F. App'x 320
Docket Number: No. 06-7043
Parties: Alfred Ray STROUPE, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Warden of Bland Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 204
Pages: 320–321

Head Matter:
Alfred Ray STROUPE, III, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry W. JARVIS, Warden of Bland Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7043.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 31, 2006.
Decided Nov. 6, 2006.
Alfred Ray Stroupe, III, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Alfred Ray Stroupe, III seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) motion as untimely. 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 Stroupe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for 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.