UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 02-7376
WILLIAM HARRISON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RONALD JONES, Superintendent,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief
District Judge. (CA-99-109-5-2-MU)
Submitted: January 24, 2003 Decided: February 10, 2003
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Harrison, Appellant Pro Se. Diane Appelton Reeves, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Harrison seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
To be entitled to a certificate of appealability, Harrison must
make “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional
right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). When a district court
dismisses solely on procedural grounds, the petitioner “must
demonstrate both (1) ‘that jurists of reason would find it
debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial
of a constitutional right,’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would
find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its
procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir. 2001)
(quoting Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473 (2000)). Upon examination
of Harrison’s petition, we cannot conclude that reasonable jurists
would find it debatable whether the district court correctly
concluded the petition was untimely filed.* Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. See Harrison
v. Jones, No. CA-99-109-5-2-MU (W.D.N.C. filed Aug. 30, 2002,
entered Sept. 3, 2002). We dispense with oral argument because the
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
*
Because the district court correctly found that Harrison’s
petition was time-barred, we do not address the court’s additional
holding that the petition was without merit.
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3