Case Name: Terry Sanjuan HILL-BEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-30
Citations: 160 F. App'x 318
Docket Number: No. 05-7174
Parties: Terry Sanjuan HILL-BEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 160
Pages: 318–318

Head Matter:
Terry Sanjuan HILL-BEY, Petitioner—Appellant, v. James V. PEGUESE, Warden; J. Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7174.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 22, 2005.
Decided Dec. 30, 2005.
Terry Sanjuan Hill-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Terry Hill-Bey, a Maryland prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 independently reviewed the record and conclude that Hill-Bey 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