Case Name: Jeffery D. LANCASTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-03
Citations: 193 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 05-7889
Parties: Jeffery D. LANCASTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 193
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
Jeffery D. LANCASTER, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Bonnie BOYETTE, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-7889.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2006.
Jeffery D. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Jeffery D. Lancaster seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 52, his motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 59, and his motion for a certificate of appealability. These 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(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 Lancaster 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