Court Opinion

ID: 1013190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:57:05.099019+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:33.658067
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6344

ALFRED SHINARD-BEY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JOSEPH P. SACCHET, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Roger W. Titus, District Judge. (CA-03-
2848-RWT)

Submitted: April 29, 2004                      Decided:   May 6, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Alfred Shinard-Bey, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Ann Rapp Ince, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Alfred Shinard-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely filed his petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).          The order is not appealable 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 Shinard-Bey 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 -