Court Opinion

ID: 1013298
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:58:52.765979+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:37.170727
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6230

THEODORE WATKINS,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN, Nottoway Correctional Center,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.  Claude M. Hilton, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-1164)

Submitted: May 13, 2004                        Decided: May 19, 2004

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Theodore Watkins, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Theodore Watkins seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000).   The order is appealable only if 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 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 Watkins has not made the requisite showing.    Accordingly, we

deny Watkins’ motion for 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 -