Case Name: Urishiman HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-26
Citations: 132 F. App'x 454
Docket Number: No. 05-6400
Parties: Urishiman HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 132
Pages: 454–455

Head Matter:
Urishiman HALL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Page TRUE, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6400.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 19, 2005.
Decided May 26, 2005.
Urishiman Hall, Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Urishiman Hall seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 his constitutional claims are debatable 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, 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 (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