Court Opinion

ID: 1019529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:36:56.940548+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:54.916028
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6421

WILLIE WALTER BUTLER, JR.,

                                              Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,     Director   Va.   Dept.   of
Corrections,

                                               Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Walter D. Kelley, Jr., District
Judge. (2:05-cv-00051-WDK-FB)

Submitted: May 18, 2006                            Decided: June 1, 2006

Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Walter Butler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Steven Andrew Witmer,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          Willie Walter Butler, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and 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 Butler has not

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

for 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 -