Case Name: Earl Westley LEE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-01
Citations: 164 F. App'x 408
Docket Number: No. 05-7291
Parties: Earl Westley LEE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 408–409

Head Matter:
Earl Westley LEE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director, Virginia Department of Corrections, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7291.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided Feb. 1, 2006.
Earl Westley Lee, Appellant Pro Se. Josephine Frances Whalen, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Earl Westley Lee 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) (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 his constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Lee has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Lee's motion for appointment of counsel, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the appeal. We also deny his motion for a copy of his transcript at government expense. 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