UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7645
SHAWN CONORAY KING,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
STANLEY K. YOUNG, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District
Judge. (CA-04-721-1)
Submitted: March 24, 2005 Decided: March 29, 2005
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Shawn Conoray King, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Conoray King, a state prisoner, seeks to appeal the
district court’s order denying as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254
(2000) petition. This order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C.
§ 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n.7
(4th Cir. 2004). 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
the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is
debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the
district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir. 2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that King has not shown the district court’s procedural ruling to
be debatable or wrong.* Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument, because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
*
In fact, King does not even challenge the court’s finding of
untimeliness on appeal.
- 2 -
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 3 -