Case Name: Harold Robert HUESTON, II, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-19
Citations: 119 F. App'x 533
Docket Number: No. 04-7258
Parties: Harold Robert HUESTON, II, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 533–533

Head Matter:
Harold Robert HUESTON, II, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Derrick WADSWORTH, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7258.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
Decided Jan. 19, 2005.
Harold Robert Hueston, II, Appellant pro se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Harold Robert Hueston, II, appeals from the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 jurists of reason 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Hueston has not made the requisite showing. We, therefore, 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED.