Case Name: Larry CHAVIS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-08
Citations: 184 F. App'x 339
Docket Number: No. 05-7555
Parties: Larry CHAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 339–340

Head Matter:
Larry CHAVIS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. State of NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7555.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 17, 2006.
Decided: June 8, 2006.
Larry Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallaee-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Chavis seeks to appeal the district court's order granting the Respondent's motion for summary judgment and denying relief on Chavis' 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as time-barred. This 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chavis 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.