Case Name: Eron JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-05
Citations: 128 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 05-6000
Parties: Eron JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 128
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
Eron JOHNSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jon P. GALLEY; John Joseph Curran, Jr., Respondents-Appellees.
No. 05-6000.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 28, 2005.
Decided May 5, 2005.
Eron Johnson, Appellant pro se. Ann Norman Bosse, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Eron Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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 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 dem onstrating 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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