Soto v. Harkleroad , 115 F. App'x 163 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 04-7502
    JAIME REYES SOTO,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SIDNEY HARKLEROAD, Superintendent,
    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-03-1122-1)
    Submitted:   December 9, 2004           Decided:     December 17, 2004
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jaime Reyes Soto, Appellant Pro Se. 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Jaime Reyes Soto seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
    (2000).     An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a
    habeas corpus proceeding 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 for claims addressed by
    a district court 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
    (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 
    529 U.S. 473
    , 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee,
    
    252 F.3d 676
    , 683 (4th Cir. 2001).            We have independently reviewed
    the record and conclude that Soto 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: 04-7502

Citation Numbers: 115 F. App'x 163

Judges: Niemeyer, Williams, Traxler

Filed Date: 12/17/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024