Case Name: Michael Steven SAYKO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-02-01
Citations: 164 F. App'x 414
Docket Number: No. 05-7088
Parties: Michael Steven SAYKO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 164
Pages: 414–414

Head Matter:
Michael Steven SAYKO, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents—Appellees.
No. 05-7088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 26, 2006.
Decided Feb. 1, 2006.
Michael Steven Sayko, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Mary Ann Rapp Ince, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Steven Sayko, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely and proeedurally defaulted his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. 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 Sayko 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