Court Opinion

ID: 1021041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:00:32.159528+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:07:05.544111
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-7382

SANTOS VALIENTE-RABANALES,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE JOHNSON, Director of the Department of
Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:05-cv-01179-CMH)

Submitted: November 15, 2006               Decided: November 22, 2006

Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Santos Valiente-Rabanales, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Santos Valiente-Rabanales seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000)

petition.    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 Valiente-

Rabanales 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 -