Court Opinion

ID: 1015202
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:29:19.732623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:43:08.740157
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 04-6797

LEMAR JAMIE ANDERSON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

PAGE TRUE, Warden,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-03-759-AM)

Submitted:   December 13, 2004            Decided:   January 14, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

LeMar Jamie Anderson, Appellant Pro Se.      Michael Thomas Judge,
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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

            LeMar Jamie Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing 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 (4th Cir. 2001).       We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Anderson has not made the requisite

showing.     Accordingly, we deny the 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 -