Court Opinion

ID: 1013480
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:02:03.768544+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:47.259829
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-6329

ROY JUNIOR CUNNINGHAM,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

THOMAS MCBRIDE, Warden,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Parkersburg. Joseph Robert Goodwin,
District Judge. (CA-03-400-6)

Submitted:   June 10, 2004                 Decided:   June 18, 2004

Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Junior Cunningham, Appellant Pro Se. Jon Rufus Blevins, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF WEST VIRGINIA, Charleston, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Roy   Junior    Cunningham      seeks   to   appeal   the    district

court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000) as untimely.              An appeal may not be taken from the

final order in a § 2254 proceeding 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 Cunningham 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 -