Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Darnell SUMUEL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-06
Citations: 157 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 05-7165
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terrence Darnell SUMUEL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Terrence Darnell SUMUEL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7165.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided Dec. 6, 2005.
Terrence Darnell Sumuel, Appellant Pro Se. Sonya LaGene Sacks, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Darnell Sumuel, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely. 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 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 Sumuel 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