Case Name: Kasean Damont BRYSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sid HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-27
Citations: 405 F. App'x 773
Docket Number: No. 10-6622
Parties: Kasean Damont BRYSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sid HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 773–774

Head Matter:
Kasean Damont BRYSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Sid HARKLEROAD, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 10-6622.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 16, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 27, 2010.
Kasean Damont Bryson, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kasean Damont Bryson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. ' 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Bryson 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.