Case Name: John JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-27
Citations: 112 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 04-7084
Parties: John JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
John JACKSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. State of MARYLAND, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7084.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 24, 2004.
Decided: Oct. 27, 2004.
John Jackson, Appellant pro se.
Edward John Kelley, Office of the Attorney General of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
John Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition as untimely 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. § 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). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jackson 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