UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 06-7289
SANTIAGO IBARRA TORRES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
RANDALL LEE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:05-cv-00661-JAB-WW)
Submitted: November 15, 2006 Decided: November 22, 2006
Before WIDENER, WILKINSON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Santiago Ibarra Torres, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Santiago Ibarra Torres seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge
and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition.
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 any
assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is
debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Torres has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Torres’
motion to amend his motion for a certificate of appealability, we
deny his motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis, 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
- 2 -