IVEY v. KELLY, 415 Fed.Appx. 481 (4th Cir. 2011)
Lorenzo James IVEY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Loretta K. KELLY,RespondentAppellee, and Commonwealth, Respondent.
No. 11-6008.United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.Submitted: February 28, 2011.
Decided: March 9, 2011.
[EDITOR'S NOTE: This case is unpublished as indicated by the issuing court.]
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Anthony J. Trenga, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00917-AJT-IDD).
Lorenzo James Ivey, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lorenzo James Ivey seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstratingPage 482
that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484,120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v.Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029,154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85,120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Ivey has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ivey's motion for appointment of 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.