Case Name: George BRIDGES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ms. Kathleen BASSETT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-03
Citations: 283 F. App'x 118
Docket Number: No. 08-6602
Parties: George BRIDGES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ms. Kathleen BASSETT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 283
Pages: 118–118

Head Matter:
George BRIDGES, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ms. Kathleen BASSETT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6602.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2008.
Decided: July 3, 2008.
George Bridges, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
George Bridges 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 Bridges has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion to set aside his plea and his motion for appointment of counsel. 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.