Court Opinion

ID: 179244
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2010-11-15 19:18:32+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:25:47.913413
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 09-7474

MICHAEL A. YATES,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

KEITH DAVIS, Warden,

                Respondent – Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.    T. S. Ellis III, Senior
District Judge. (1:08-cv-01284-TSE-IDD)

Submitted:   November 5, 2010              Decided:   November 15, 2010

Before WILKINSON and      GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Yates, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Michael A. Yates seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing       as    untimely       his    28    U.S.C.       § 2254     (2006)

petition.      The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or    judge   issues      a    certificate      of    appealability.           28    U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1) (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    (2000);     see    Miller-El    v.    Cockrell,       537       U.S.   322,   336-38

(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.              We have independently reviewed the record

and    conclude    that       Yates   has   not      made   the    requisite       showing.

Accordingly,       we     deny     Yates’    motion         for    a     certificate      of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                        We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

                                            2
presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                     DISMISSED

                                  3