Court Opinion

ID: 621427
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2012-01-24 19:51:12+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:50:56.683489
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 11-7291

ALLEN NEIL PANFILE, SR.,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

GENE M. JOHNSON,

                Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.   Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:11-cv-00212-JLK)

Submitted:   January 13, 2012             Decided:   January 24, 2012

Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Allen Neil Panfile, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Allen Neil Panfile, Sr. seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006)

petition.     The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.                      See 28 U.S.C.

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2006).          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) (2006).            When the

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies

this    standard     by    demonstrating       that   reasonable     jurists    would

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional

claims is debatable or wrong.              Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,     537 U.S. 322,    336-38

(2003).     When the district court denies relief on procedural

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                       Slack,
529 U.S. at 484-85.           We have independently reviewed the record

and conclude that Panfile 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

                                           2
before   the   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                   DISMISSED

                                    3