Court Opinion

ID: 1022463
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:22:41.231907+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:16:07.350792
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                     UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                         FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 07-6121

KEITH TYRONE HEYWARD,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

            versus

DON WOOD,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.  James C. Dever III,
District Judge. (5:05-hc-00768-D)

Submitted: April 26, 2007                         Decided: May 3, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Keith Tyrone Heyward, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Keith Tyrone Heyward seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing 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)(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   any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.     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 that Heyward 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 -