Case Name: Darrell Lee YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry DAIL, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-02-25
Citations: 312 F. App'x 541
Docket Number: No. 08-7945
Parties: Darrell Lee YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry DAIL, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 312
Pages: 541–541

Head Matter:
Darrell Lee YOUNG, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Larry DAIL, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7945.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 19, 2009.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2009.
Darrell Lee Young, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Darrell Lee Young seeks to appeal the district court's order' dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive 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 Young 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.