Case Name: Edgar Joseph BIRCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent-Appellee, and Greenville County South Carolina; South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents; Edgar Joseph Birch, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Warden Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee, and South Carolina Pickens County; South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-06-26
Citations: 282 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: Nos. 08-6224, 08-6239
Parties: Edgar Joseph BIRCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee, and Greenville County South Carolina; South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents. Edgar Joseph Birch, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee, and South Carolina Pickens County; South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 282
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
Edgar Joseph BIRCH, Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN OKALOOSA CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Respondent—Appellee, and Greenville County South Carolina; South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents. Edgar Joseph Birch, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Warden Okaloosa Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee, and South Carolina Pickens County; South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents.
Nos. 08-6224, 08-6239.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2008.
Decided: June 26, 2008.
Edgar Joseph Birch, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Edgar Joseph Birch seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petitions. The orders are 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(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 dis-positive 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 records and conclude that Birch has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeals. 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.