Case Name: Louis Gonzell GIBSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. William W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-01-28
Citations: 86 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 03-7683
Parties: Louis Gonzell GIBSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents— Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 86
Pages: 571–572

Head Matter:
Louis Gonzell GIBSON, Petitioner—Appellant, v. William W. SONDERVAN, Commissioner; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents— Appellees.
No. 03-7683.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 15, 2004.
Decided Jan. 28, 2004.
Louis Gonzell Gibson, Appellant pro se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Edward Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Louis Gonzell Gibson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). 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 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 Gibson 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