Case Name: Lawrence Wayne PERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-18
Citations: 112 F. App'x 927
Docket Number: No. 04-7458
Parties: Lawrence Wayne PERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 927–928

Head Matter:
Lawrence Wayne PERSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Ed WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7458.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 3, 2004.
Decided Nov. 18, 2004.
Lawrence Wayne Person, Appellant pro se.
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lawrence Wayne Person, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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, 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 Person 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