Court Opinion

ID: 1020914
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:58:35.517167+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:57.646168
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-7402

WILLIAM T. HENDERSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

JENNIFER H. LANGLEY,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:06-cv-00254-1-MU)

Submitted:   October 23, 2006             Decided:   November 9, 2006

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William T. Henderson, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           William T. Henderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition,

and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for

reconsideration.      The orders are 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 Henderson has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of   appealability,    deny   Henderson’s   motion   for   appointment   of

counsel, 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 -