Case Name: Derrick HARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-08
Citations: 320 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: No. 08-7685
Parties: Derrick HARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 320
Pages: 192–193

Head Matter:
Derrick HARRELL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Anthony HATHAWAY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 08-7685.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 6, 2009.
Decided: April 8, 2009.
Derrick Harrell, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Harrell seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his post-judgment motion, construed by the court as a motion pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e), seeking reconsideration of the court's order dismissing as untimely Harrell's 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001).
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Harrell's brief alleges no error committed by the district court in denying his motion, and we discern none. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.