Case Name: Wakeel ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-11-14
Citations: 300 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 08-6746
Parties: Wakeel ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 300
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
Wakeel ABDUL-SABUR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-6746.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 28, 2008.
Decided Nov. 14, 2008.
Wakeel Abdul-Sabur, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Wakeel Abdul-Sabur 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 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 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 Abdul-Sabur has not made the requisite showing. Accoi'dingly, we deny Abdul-Sabur'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.