Joe v. South of Carolina , 203 F. App'x 438 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6792
    MICHAEL LARRON JOE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA; HENRY MCMASTER,
    Attorney General of South Carolina,
    Respondents - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
    South Carolina, at Charleston. Terry L. Wooten, District Judge.
    (0:05-cv-01726-TLW)
    Submitted:   September 29, 2006           Decided:   October 17, 2006
    Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Michael Larron Joe, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Samuel
    Creighton Waters, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA,
    Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Michael Larron Joe 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 Joe 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: 06-6792

Citation Numbers: 203 F. App'x 438

Judges: Wilkinson, Williams, Traxler

Filed Date: 10/17/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024