Tucker v. Rowley , 316 F. App'x 229 ( 2009 )

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-6949
REGINALD S. TUCKER,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
JOHN A. ROWLEY, Warden; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND,
Respondents – Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:07-cv-02930-CCB)
Submitted: February 27, 2009 Decided: March 9, 2009
Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald S. Tucker, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley,
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald S. Tucker seeks to appeal the district
court’s orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254(2000) petition and denying his motion to alter or amend
judgment. 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 record and conclude that Tucker has
not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion
to appoint counsel, 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
2