UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 07-6420
RANDY SCOTT BALLON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
DON WOOD, Superintendent; THEODIS BECK,
Secretary of Corrections,
Respondents - Appellees.
No. 07-7446
RANDY SCOTT BALLON,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
THEODIS BECK; DONALD WOOD,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief
District Judge. (1:06-cv-00393-JAB; 1:06-cv-00980)
Submitted: November 20, 2007 Decided: November 28, 2007
Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Randy Scott Ballon, Appellant Pro Se. Clarence Joe DelForge, III,
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated cases, Randy Scott Ballon seeks to
appeal the district court’s orders accepting the recommendation of
the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.
§ 2254 (2000) petitions. 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 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 records and
conclude that Ballon has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny the motion for a certificate of appealability,
deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny the motion for
appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
- 3 -
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 4 -