Case Name: Albert J. ARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-28
Citations: 137 F. App'x 569
Docket Number: No. 04-7712
Parties: Albert J. ARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 137
Pages: 569–570

Head Matter:
Albert J. ARRINGTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, KEEN MOUNTAIN CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7712.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 23, 2005.
Decided June 28, 2005.
Albert J. Arrington, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Albert J. Arrington 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 both 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 Arrington 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED