Case Name: Keith Douglas ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Herbert JACKSON, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-09
Citations: 315 F. App'x 493
Docket Number: No. 08-7943
Parties: Keith Douglas ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Herbert JACKSON, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 315
Pages: 493–494

Head Matter:
Keith Douglas ROBINSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Herbert JACKSON, Superintendent, Brown Creek Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7943.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 20, 2009.
Decided: March 9, 2009.
Keith Douglas Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Douglas Robinson 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 ap-pealability. 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(e)(2) (2000). 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 dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Robinson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Robinson's motion for 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.