Worden v. Johnson , 145 F. App'x 444 ( 2005 )


Menu:
  •                                UNPUBLISHED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    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 04-7957

Citation Numbers: 145 F. App'x 444

Judges: Wilkinson, Niemeyer, Michael

Filed Date: 10/14/2005

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 10/19/2024