Court Opinion

ID: 1023275
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:35:28.844039+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:15.151067
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 07-6433

RODNEY LAMONT WEBSTER,

                                            Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                                             Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (1:06-cv-01235-LMB)

Submitted:   July 18, 2007                 Decided:   August 3, 2007

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Rodney Lamont Webster, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Rodney     Lamont   Webster     seeks   to    appeal   the    district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition as

untimely.    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

any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court

is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable.                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 Webster 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 -