Court Opinion

ID: 1024810
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:39:39.475662+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:31.363751
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-7235

GERALD L. WHITTINGTON,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Department of
Corrections,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:07-cv-00294-jlk)

Submitted:   January 17, 2008             Decided:   January 24, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald L. Whittington, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

            Gerald     L.   Whittington     seeks   to    appeal   the    district

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

petition.    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 Whittington 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 -