Case Name: Larry D. BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MANNING CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; State of South Carolina; Henry D. McMaster, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-16
Citations: 115 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 04-6736
Parties: Larry D. BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MANNING CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; State of South Carolina; Henry D. McMaster, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 155–155

Head Matter:
Larry D. BURNS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, MANNING CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION; State of South Carolina; Henry D. McMaster, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6736.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 18, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 16, 2004.
Larry D. Burns, Appellant pro se.
Melody Jane Brown, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry D. Burns appeals from the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 jurists of reason 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, 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 reviewed the record and conclude that Burns has not made the requisite showing. We therefore deny Burns' motions to proceed in forma pauperis and for appointment of counsel, 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