Case Name: Ronald Anthony MANNO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas F. GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; Robert Koppel, Warden, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-05-27
Citations: 279 F. App'x 280
Docket Number: No. 07-7639
Parties: Ronald Anthony MANNO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas F. GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; Robert Koppel, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 279
Pages: 280–281

Head Matter:
Ronald Anthony MANNO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Douglas F. GANSLER, Maryland Attorney General; Robert Koppel, Warden, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 07-7639.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2008.
Decided: May 27, 2008.
Ronald Anthony Manno, Appellant Pro Se. Cathleen C. Brockmeyer, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before MOTZ and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Anthony Manno 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. See 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. See 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 Man-no has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal, and deny Manno's motions for appointment of counsel and for summary judgment of his 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.