Case Name: Michael HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-14
Citations: 123 F. App'x 122
Docket Number: No. 04-7618
Parties: Michael HUNT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 122–123

Head Matter:
Michael HUNT, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7618.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2005.
Decided: March 14, 2005.
William P. Robinson, Jr., Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellant.
Virginia Bidwell Theisen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Hunt appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken to this court 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 jurists of reason would find 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Hunt has not made the requisite showing. We, therefore, 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED