Case Name: Lance Adam GOLDMAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-04-03
Citations: 470 F. App'x 131
Docket Number: No. 11-7712
Parties: Lance Adam GOLDMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 131–132

Head Matter:
Lance Adam GOLDMAN, Petitioner—Appellant, v. George KENWORTHY, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-7712.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2012.
Decided: April 3, 2012.
Lance Adam Goldman, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lance Adam Goldman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as un timely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Goldman 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.