Court Opinion

ID: 1024562
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:35:28.286242+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:21.961548
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-7014

CLAUDE LINDEN ROSE,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JACK   LEE,   Superintendent,    Middle     River
Regional Jail,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:06-cv-00471-JLK)

Submitted:   December 13, 2007            Decided:   December 19, 2007

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Claude Linden Rose, Appellant Pro Se. Leah Ann Darron, Assistant
Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Claude Linden Rose 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 Rose has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rose’s motion for

appointment of counsel, 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 -