Case Name: Todd P. PATE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-06
Citations: 128 F. App'x 330
Docket Number: No. 05-6173
Parties: Todd P. PATE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 330–331

Head Matter:
Todd P. PATE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Tracy RAY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-6173.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2005.
Decided: May 6, 2005.
Todd P. Pate, Appellant pro se.
Stephen R. McCullough, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Todd P. Pate seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 336-38, 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 Pate has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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