Court Opinion

ID: 1017457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:05:15.461547+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:17.409928
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6925

BRIHEIM LAFEE RICE,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

WARDEN, DEERFIELD CORRECTIONAL CENTER,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-05-93-LMB)

Submitted:   October 20, 2005             Decided:   October 28, 2005

Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Briheim Lafee Rice, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Briheim Lafee Rice seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying as untimely 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, 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 Rice has not made the requisite showing

with respect to the district court’s procedural ruling.

               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 -