Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07451/USCOURTS-ca4-07-07451-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 510
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Vacate Sentence
Cause of Action: 

---

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-7451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

WILLIAM RAY LAMBERT,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (7:05-cr-00013; 7:07-cv-00056)

Submitted: February 21, 2008 Decided: February 26, 2008

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ray Lambert, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Jennifer P.

May-Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-7451 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

William Ray Lambert seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

his motion to amend. The order is 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 Lambert has not

made the requisite showing that he is entitled to a certificate of

appealability. 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

Appeal: 07-7451 Doc: 8 Filed: 02/26/2008 Pg: 2 of 2