Case Name: Michael HAAS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-04-13
Citations: 92 F. App'x 967
Docket Number: No. 03-7703
Parties: Michael HAAS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 92
Pages: 967–968

Head Matter:
Michael HAAS, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jack LEE, Warden, Keen Mountain Correctional Center, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 03-7703.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 26, 2004.
Decided: April 13, 2004.
Frederick Robert Gerson, Robinson & Gerson, P.C., Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant.
John H. McLees, Jr., Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 Haas seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition as untimely 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 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 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 Haas 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