Case Name: Christopher CARTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Leslie M. MCCANN, Assistant Commonwealth, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-23
Citations: 102 F. App'x 820
Docket Number: No. 04-6931
Parties: Christopher CARTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Leslie M. MCCANN, Assistant Commonwealth, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 820–821

Head Matter:
Christopher CARTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Leslie M. MCCANN, Assistant Commonwealth, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-6931.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 23, 2004.
Christopher Carter, Appellant pro se.
Before MOTZ, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Christopher Carter, a Virginia inmate, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 Carter 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