Case Name: Jermaine Lorenzo PICKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-25
Citations: 353 F. App'x 861
Docket Number: No. 09-7527
Parties: Jermaine Lorenzo PICKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 861–862

Head Matter:
Jermaine Lorenzo PICKETT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene JOHNSON, Director Virginia Dept. of Correction, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-7527.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 25, 2009.
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Conrad Williamson, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Lorenzo Pickett seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 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 Pickett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pickett'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.