Case Name: Richard Nathan BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-04
Citations: 103 F. App'x 774
Docket Number: No. 04-6373
Parties: Richard Nathan BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 103
Pages: 774–775

Head Matter:
Richard Nathan BANKS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. STATE of South Carolina; Charles Molony Condon, Attorney General, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 04-6373.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2004.
Decided: Aug. 4, 2004.
Beattie B. Ashmore, Price, Paschal & Ashmore, PA, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellant.
Donald John Zelenka, Chief Deputy Attorney General, William Edgar Salter, III, Office of the Attorney General of South Carolina, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Nathan Banks seeks to appeal from the district court's order dismissing 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 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. § 2258(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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Banks 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