Case Name: Monique D. REDD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-02
Citations: 225 F. App'x 110
Docket Number: No. 06-8070
Parties: Monique D. REDD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 225
Pages: 110–111

Head Matter:
Monique D. REDD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Commonwealth of VIRGINIA, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-8070.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2007.
Decided: May 2, 2007.
Monique D. Redd, Appellant Pro Se. Susan Mozley Harris, Office of the Attorney General of Virginia, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Monique D. Redd seeks to appeal the magistrate judge's order dismissing as untimely her 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). 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 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 Redd 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.
This case was decided by the magistrate judge upon consent of the parties under 28 U.S.C. § 636(c) (2000).