Case Name: Larry R. MASON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-30
Citations: 103 F. App'x 739
Docket Number: No. 03-7853
Parties: Larry R. MASON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 739–740

Head Matter:
Larry R. MASON, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gene M. JOHNSON, Director of Corrections, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 03-7853.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 16, 2004.
Decided: July 30, 2004.
Larry R. Mason, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry R. Mason, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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).
By failing to challenge in his informal brief the district court's finding regarding timeliness, Mason has failed to demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and has waived his right to challenge the district court's dismissal of his § 2254 petition as untimely. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 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