Court Opinion

ID: 1015275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:30:26.986819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:10.277459
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-7440

VINCENT BRADY ALLEN,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Superintendent, Odom
Correctional Institution,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-04-183-3-MU-2)

Submitted:   January 13, 2005             Decided:   January 20, 2005

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM,
JR., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Vincent Brady Allen seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254

(2000) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year period

allowed for such actions.           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 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-

38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).                 We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Allen has not made the

requisite      showing.        Accordingly,    we   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 -