Court Opinion

ID: 1019480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:36:06.687603+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:50.399906
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6272

BARDONIANO O. LOPEZ,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

LAWRENCE M. SOLOMON, Superintendent,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (5:06-cv-00012)

Submitted: May 16, 2006                        Decided: May 23, 2006

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bardoniano O. Lopez, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (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

                                      - 2 -