UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-6198
MAXIE THANIEL,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
GENE JOHNSON, Director DOC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (CA-03-611-3)
Submitted: July 23, 2004 Decided: August 17, 2004
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Maxie Thaniel, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Eldridge Jeffrey, III,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Maxie Thaniel seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000).
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 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 Thaniel 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
*
Although we disagree with the district court’s conclusion
that the state court rejected Thaniel’s argument that the delayed
imposition of judgment altered the commencement of his limitations
period, we agree that the state court denied Thaniel’s claims based
on an independent and adequate state procedural ground, thus
precluding federal review. See Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722
(1991).
- 2 -