Case Name: Philip Harry MARSHNER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-17
Citations: 224 F. App'x 275
Docket Number: No. 06-7778
Parties: Philip Harry MARSHNER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 224
Pages: 275–276

Head Matter:
Philip Harry MARSHNER, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Attorney General of the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 06-7778.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 4, 2007.
Decided: April 17, 2007.
Philip Harry Marshner, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Philip Harry Marshner, 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 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 Marshner 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.