Court Opinion

ID: 1015286
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:30:35.287767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:10.574073
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 04-7258

HAROLD ROBERT HUESTON, II,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DERRICK WADSWORTH,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (CA-03-867-5-BO)

Submitted:   January 13, 2005              Decided:   January 19, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Harold Robert Hueston, II, appeals from the district

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

petition.     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   jurists     of     reason    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 reviewed the record and conclude that Hueston has

not made the requisite showing.          We, therefore, 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 in the decisional process.

                                                                        DISMISSED

                                   - 2 -