Rhew v. Beck , 158 F. App'x 410 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6107
DON RHEW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
No. 05-6189
DON RHEW,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK, Secretary, North Carolina
Department of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District
Judge. (CA-04-340-1)
Submitted: November 23, 2005 Decided: December 13, 2005
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Don Rhew, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Don Rhew seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying 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 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 Rhew has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the
appeals. 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
- 3 -