Case Name: Emmanuel Edward SEWELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kathleen S. GREEN, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-10-17
Citations: 251 F. App'x 176
Docket Number: No. 07-6962
Parties: Emmanuel Edward SEWELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Kathleen S. GREEN, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 251
Pages: 176–176

Head Matter:
Emmanuel Edward SEWELL, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Kathleen S. GREEN, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 07-6962.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 11, 2007.
Decided: Oct. 17, 2007.
Emmanuel Edward Sewell, Appellant pro se. James Everett Williams, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel Edward Sewell seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is 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 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 record and conclude that Sewell 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.