Stevens v. Beck , 208 F. App'x 260 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-7447
    WESLEY DELANO STEVENS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    THEODIS BECK,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, Chief
    District Judge. (5:05-hc-00453-FL)
    Submitted: November 21, 2006              Decided:   December 4, 2006
    Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
    Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Wesley Delano Stevens, Appellant Pro Se. Alvin William Keller,
    Jr., NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina,
    for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    PER CURIAM:
    Wesley     Delano   Stevens     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 Stevens 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 06-7447

Citation Numbers: 208 F. App'x 260

Judges: Traxler, Duncan, Hamilton

Filed Date: 12/4/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024