Case Name: Raumel Sobaranis URENA, a/k/a Raumel Soberanis Urena, a/k/a Justino Soberanis Urena, a/k/a Raumel Soberanis, a/k/a Justino Soberanis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-20
Citations: 210 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 06-7080
Parties: Raumel Sobaranis URENA, a/k/a Raumel Soberanis Urena, a/k/a Justino Soberanis Urena, a/k/a Raumel Soberanis, a/k/a Justino Soberanis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 210
Pages: 279–279

Head Matter:
Raumel Sobaranis URENA, a/k/a Raumel Soberanis Urena, a/k/a Justino Soberanis Urena, a/k/a Raumel Soberanis, a/k/a Justino Soberanis, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Jennifer H. LANGLEY, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 06-7080.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 14, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2006.
Raumel Sobaranis Urena, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge III, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raumel Sobaranis Urena seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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 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. 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 Urena has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.