Court Opinion

ID: 1013114
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:55:40.033735+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:30.760930
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 04-6021

CHRISTOPHER JAMES FORDHAM,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

BONNIE BOYETTE, Superintendent,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-333-3)

Submitted:   April 15, 2004                 Decided:   April 22, 2004

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher James Fordham, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Christopher James Fordham seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28

U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).      An appeal may not be taken from the final

order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir 2001). We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Fordham 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

                                     - 2 -