Case Name: Kirk L. ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-28
Citations: 600 F. App'x 177
Docket Number: No. 14-7817
Parties: Kirk L. ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 600
Pages: 177–178

Head Matter:
Kirk L. ANDERSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 14-7817.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 23, 2015.
Decided: April 28, 2015.
Kirk L. Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kirk L. Anderson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Anderson 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.