Court Opinion

ID: 1026087
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 07:00:39.308712+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:44:15.056937
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                              No. 08-6602

GEORGE BRIDGES,

                  Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

MS. KATHLEEN BASSETT, Warden,

                  Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.
(7:07-cv-00490-gec-mfu)

Submitted:    June 26, 2008                  Decided:   July 3, 2008

Before KING and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Bridges, Appellant Pro Se. Kathleen Beatty Martin, Senior
Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           George Bridges 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 Bridges has not

made the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny his motion for a

certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma

pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.       We also deny his motion to set

aside his plea and his motion for appointment of counsel.                  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 -