Case Name: Alvin W. HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent David MITCHELL; Alvin Keller, Jr., Secretary, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-26
Citations: 348 F. App'x 871
Docket Number: No. 09-7067
Parties: Alvin W. HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent David MITCHELL; Alvin Keller, Jr., Secretary, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 348
Pages: 871–872

Head Matter:
Alvin W. HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Superintendent David MITCHELL; Alvin Keller, Jr., Secretary, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-7067.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 20, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 26, 2009.
Alvin W. Hall, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Alvin W. Hall seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and a subsequent order denying relief on his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 disposi-tive 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 Hall 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.