Court Opinion

ID: 1017324
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:03:15.073469+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:42:07.196936
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 04-7957

MITCHELL ANTONIO WORDEN,

                                                Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director,

                                                 Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District
Judge. (CA-03-886-1)

Submitted:   August 19, 2005                 Decided:   October 14, 2005

Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mitchell Antonio Worden, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

           Mitchell Antonio Worden 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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).    We have independently reviewed the

record and conclude that Worden 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 -