Court Opinion

ID: 1012544
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:46:44.811892+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:10.414602
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-7586

HARRY JAMES FOWLER,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

DAVID MITCHELL, Superintendent,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen,
Chief District Judge. (CA-03-88-5-2MU)

Submitted:   February 12, 2004            Decided:   February 20, 2004

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Harry James Fowler, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Harry James Fowler seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 (2000).      The order is appealable only if 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 (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 Fowler 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 -