Case Name: Gregory Keith LOCKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, SOUTH HAMPTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-15
Citations: 115 F. App'x 141
Docket Number: No. 04-7216
Parties: Gregory Keith LOCKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, SOUTH HAMPTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 115
Pages: 141–142

Head Matter:
Gregory Keith LOCKE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. WARDEN, SOUTH HAMPTON CORRECTIONAL CENTER, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7216.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Dec. 9, 2004.
Decided Dec. 15, 2004.
Gregory Keith Locke, Appellant pro se. Thomas Drummond Bagwell, Assistant At torney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Gregory Keith Locke, a Virginia prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) as untimely under the AEDPA statute of limitations. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2254 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 both 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 Locke 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