Lancaster v. Boyette , 193 F. App'x 246 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7889
    JEFFERY D. LANCASTER,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    BONNIE BOYETTE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   Terrence W. Boyle,
    District Judge. (CA-04-633-5-BO)
    Submitted:   June 26, 2006                 Decided:   August 3, 2006
    Before MICHAEL, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Jeffery D. Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se.     Sandra Wallace-Smith,
    Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Jeffery D. Lancaster seeks to appeal the district court’s
    orders denying as untimely his 
    28 U.S.C. § 2254
     (2000) petition and
    denying his motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52, his motion under Fed.
    R. Civ. P. 59, and his motion for a certificate of appealability.
    These orders are 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 Lancaster 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: 05-7889

Citation Numbers: 193 F. App'x 246

Judges: Michael, Gregory, Shedd

Filed Date: 8/3/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024