Case Name: Shaun A. GOODE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-05
Citations: 280 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 08-6218
Parties: Shaun A. GOODE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 280
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Shaun A. GOODE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, WALLENS RIDGE STATE PRISON, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 08-6218.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2008.
Decided: June 5, 2008.
Shaun A. Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Shaun A. Goode seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 Goode 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.