
    Eduardo Ambario BARRERA, Petitioner — Appellant, v. Sherwood R. McCABE, Respondent— Appellee.
    No. 05-6456.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted Aug. 26, 2005.
    Decided Sept. 8, 2005.
    Eduardo Ambario Barrera, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Harper Graham, Assistant Attorney General, North Carolina Department of Justice, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
    Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
    Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Eduardo Barrera seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as untimely his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding 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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that even if the district court committed a procedural error in dismissing the appeal without giving Barrera an opportunity to address the potential applicability of equitable tolling, see Hill v. Braxton, 277 F.3d 701, 706-07 (4th Cir.2002), Barrera has not made the requisite showing of the denial of a constitutional right. See Murphy v. Netherlands 116 F.3d 97, 100 (4th Cir.1997). 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  