UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-6026
ERNEST EDWARD SIMPSON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
S. A. HOLENCIK, Acting Warden; ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE STATE OF MARYLAND,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District
Judge. (CA-04-2939)
Submitted: April 28, 2005 Decided: May 5, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ernest Edward Simpson, Appellant Pro Se. Ann Norman Bosse, OFFICE
OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Ernest Edward Simpson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under
28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000), and the court’s order denying his motion
filed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). The orders are 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 the district court’s assessment of his
constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any
dispositive procedural rulings by the district court also are
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, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently
reviewed the record and conclude that Simpson has not made the
requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of
appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Simpson’s motion for
preparation of a transcript at government expense and 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
- 2 -