Case Name: William STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-12-30
Citations: 84 F. App'x 313
Docket Number: No. 03-6953
Parties: William STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 84
Pages: 313–314

Head Matter:
William STANLEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-6953.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 10, 2003.
Decided Dec. 30, 2003.
William Stanley, Appellant pro se.
Eugene Paul Murphy, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
William Stanley seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely filed his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 337, 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 Stanley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Stanley'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