Case Name: James Allen SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-22
Citations: 218 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 06-7348
Parties: James Allen SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 240–240

Head Matter:
James Allen SMITH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Edward WRIGHT, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7348.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2007.
James Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Allen Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. 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 Smith 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.