Case Name: Michael Lewis FREEMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Prisons, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-02
Citations: 193 F. App'x 202
Docket Number: No. 06-6472
Parties: Michael Lewis FREEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Prisons, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 202–203

Head Matter:
Michael Lewis FREEMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Theodis BECK, Secretary of Prisons, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6472.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 2, 2006.
Michael Lewis Freeman, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Lewis Freeman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. 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 sat isfies 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 Freeman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Freeman's 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.