Case Name: Barry Michael HARVELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Todd W. PINION, Superintendent of Piedmont Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-01
Citations: 170 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 05-7297
Parties: Barry Michael HARVELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Todd W. PINION, Superintendent of Piedmont Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 170
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
Barry Michael HARVELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Todd W. PINION, Superintendent of Piedmont Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7297.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 23, 2006.
Decided March 1, 2006.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., The Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Barry Michael Harvell seeks to appeal from the district court's order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 certifícate 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 rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Harvell 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