Court Opinion

ID: 1018632
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:23:14.399259+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:49:40.519944
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-7297

BARRY MICHAEL HARVELL,

                                             Petitioner - Appellant,

          versus

TODD W. PINION, Superintendent of Piedmont
Correctional Institution,

                                              Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District       Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham.        James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (CA-04-1007-1)

Submitted:   February 23, 2006               Decided:   March 1, 2006

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Bruce Tracy Cunningham, Jr., THE LAW OFFICE OF BRUCE T. CUNNINGHAM,
JR., Southern Pines, North Carolina, for Appellant. Clarence Joe
DelForge, III, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

            Barry Michael Harvell seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order adopting the recommendation of the magistrate judge

and denying 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

the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is

debatable or wrong 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 Harvell

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 -