UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-7853
LARRY R. MASON, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of Corrections,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
District Judge. (CA-03-1054)
Submitted: June 16, 2004 Decided: July 30, 2004
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Larry R. Mason, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Larry R. Mason, Jr., a state prisoner, seeks to appeal
the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) petition. 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
for claims addressed by a district court 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).
By failing to challenge in his informal brief the
district court’s finding regarding timeliness, Mason has failed to
demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find that his
constitutional claims are debatable and has waived his right to
challenge the district court’s dismissal of his § 2254 petition as
untimely. 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -