Court Opinion

ID: 1012209
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 20:41:04.535672+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:03.330746
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 03-6953

WILLIAM STANLEY,

                                           Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                            Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-02-856-2)

Submitted:   December 10, 2003         Decided:     December 30, 2003

Before WIDENER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Stanley, Appellant Pro Se. Eugene Paul Murphy, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

     William Stanley seeks to appeal the district court’s order

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

§ 2254 (2000).        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, 337 (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     Stanley    has   not   made     the    requisite   showing.

Accordingly,    we    deny     Stanley’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