Case Name: Milton Leroy LAWRENCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-03-27
Citations: 271 F. App'x 316
Docket Number: No. 07-7447
Parties: Milton Leroy LAWRENCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 271
Pages: 316–316

Head Matter:
Milton Leroy LAWRENCE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Ernest R. SUTTON, Respondent-Appellee, and State of North Carolina, Respondent.
No. 07-7447.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2008.
Decided: March 27, 2008.
Milton Leroy Lawrence, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Milton Leroy Lawrence seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition and denying his motions for reconsideration and for a certifícate of appealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Lawrence 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.