Case Name: Leonard H. ARLINE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. L. KELLY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-24
Citations: 234 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 07-6407
Parties: Leonard H. ARLINE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. L. KELLY, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
Leonard H. ARLINE, Petitioner—Appellant, v. L. KELLY, Warden, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 07-6407.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2007.
Decided: July 24, 2007.
Leonard H. Arline, Appellant Pro Se. Noelle Leigh Shaw-Bell, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Leonard H. Arline 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 ap-pealability. 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 dispositive 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 Arline 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.