Case Name: Donald SPROUSE, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 131 F. App'x 923
Docket Number: No. 05-6109
Parties: Donald SPROUSE, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 923–924

Head Matter:
Donald SPROUSE, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. WARDEN, BRUNSWICK CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 05-6109.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 12, 2005.
Decided: May 18, 2005.
Donald Sprouse, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Kathleen Beatty Martin, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Donald Sprouse, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The orders are 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 constitution-
al right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sprouse has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of .appealability, deny Sprouse's motion to compel, 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