Case Name: Billy Ray SNEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-22
Citations: 696 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 17-6747
Parties: Billy Ray SNEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
Billy Ray SNEAD, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Harold W. CLARKE, Director, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-6747
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 17, 2017
Decided: August 22, 2017
Billy Ray Snead, Appellant Pro Se.
Before KEENAN, THACKER, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Billy Ray Snead seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Snead has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. •
DISMISSED