Case Name: Charles E. BOYLES, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Gene Johnson, Director of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-22
Citations: 160 F. App'x 293
Docket Number: No. 05-7638
Parties: Charles E. BOYLES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Gene Johnson, Director of Prisons, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 160
Pages: 293–294

Head Matter:
Charles E. BOYLES, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA; Gene Johnson, Director of Prisons, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7638.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 15, 2005.
Decided Dec. 22, 2005.
Charles E. Boyles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles E. Boyles, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 both 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. 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 Boyles has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Boyles'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