Velarde v. McCabe , 194 F. App'x 137 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                              UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 06-6581
    LUIS ARMANDO VELARDE,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    SHERWOOD R. MCCABE,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District       Court for the Middle
    District of North Carolina, at Durham.        James A. Beaty, Jr.,
    District Judge. (1:05-cv-00275-JAB-PT)
    Submitted:   June 28, 2006                 Decided:   August 11, 2006
    Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Luis Armando Velarde, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge,
    III, Mary Carla Hollis, 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    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
    Luis Armando Velarde seeks to appeal the district court’s
    order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and
    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 Velarde 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: 06-6581

Citation Numbers: 194 F. App'x 137

Judges: Niemeyer, Michael, Motz

Filed Date: 8/11/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024