Case Name: Bardoniano O. LOPEZ, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Lawrence M. SOLOMON, Superintendent, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-23
Citations: 182 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 06-6272
Parties: Bardoniano O. LOPEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lawrence M. SOLOMON, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 182
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
Bardoniano O. LOPEZ, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Lawrence M. SOLOMON, Superintendent, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6272.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted May 16, 2006.
Decided May 23, 2006.
Bardoniano O. Lopez, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Bardoniano Lopez seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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 Lopez 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