Giddens v. Johnson , 169 F. App'x 777 ( 2006 )


Menu:
  •                               UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 05-7612
    TROY LAMAR GIDDENS,
    Petitioner - Appellant,
    versus
    GENE JOHNSON,      Director   of   Department   of
    Corrections,
    Respondent - Appellee.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of Virginia, at Alexandria. James C. Cacheris, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-05-94-1)
    Submitted: February 23, 2006                         Decided: March 3, 2006
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Troy Lamar Giddens, Appellant Pro Se.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    Troy Lamar Giddens seeks to appeal the district court's
    order 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) (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 his constitutional claims by the district court is
    debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by
    the   district   court   is   likewise   debatable.         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 Giddens
    has not made the requisite showing.                Accordingly, we 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 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 05-7612

Citation Numbers: 169 F. App'x 777

Judges: King, Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Widener

Filed Date: 3/3/2006

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023