Case Name: Vincent Brady ALLEN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lawrence SOLOMON, Superintendent, Odom Correctional Institution, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-20
Citations: 119 F. App'x 548
Docket Number: No. 04-7440
Parties: Vincent Brady ALLEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lawrence SOLOMON, Superintendent, Odom Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 548–548

Head Matter:
Vincent Brady ALLEN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lawrence SOLOMON, Superintendent, Odom Correctional Institution, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 04-7440.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
Decided Jan. 20, 2005.
Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., the Law Office of Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Vincent Brady Allen seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year period allowed for such actions. 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 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, 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 Allen 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