Case Name: Melvin Curtis SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.L. WOODARD, Superintendent of Johnston Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-03-10
Citations: 57 F. App'x 167
Docket Number: No. 02-7541
Parties: Melvin Curtis SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.L. WOODARD, Superintendent of Johnston Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 57
Pages: 167–167

Head Matter:
Melvin Curtis SMITH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. G.L. WOODARD, Superintendent of Johnston Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 02-7541.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 25, 2003.
Decided March 10, 2003.
Melvin Curtis Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Melvin Curtis Smith appeals the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, an appellant must make "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When dismissal occurs on procedural grounds, the petitioner "must demonstrate both: (1) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right,' and (2) 'that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.' " Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000)), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318,151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001).
Upon examination of Smith's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition and the record, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists would find it debatable whether the district court correctly concluded the petition was untimely. See Smith v. Woodard, No. CA-00-914-5-F-3 (E.D.N.C. Sept. 5, 2002).
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (2000). 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.
The one-year limitations period commenced on October 5, 1998, ninety days after the North Carolina Court of Appeals affirmed Smith's conviction on July 7, 1998. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(A); Harris v. Hutchinson, 209 F.3d 325, 327 (4th Cir.2000). Smith's subsequent pursuit of collateral review in the North Carolina Court of Appeals was properly filed, and tolled his one-year filing period; however, Smith's pursuit of collateral review in the North Carolina Supreme Court was improperly filed, and did not toll his filing period. Artuz v. Bennett, 531 U.S. 4, 8, 121 S.Ct. 361, 148 L.Ed.2d 213 (2000). Consequently, Smith's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 was due by May 14, 2000. Smith's petition was signed and therefore filed on December 1, 2000. Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266, 270, 108 S.Ct. 2379, 101 L.Ed.2d 245 (1988). Accordingly, Smith's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition was untimely filed.