Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marion PROMISE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 229 F. App'x 273
Docket Number: No. 06-7909
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marion PROMISE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 273–274

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marion PROMISE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7909.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 8, 2007.
Decided: June 19, 2007.
Marion Promise, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marion Promise seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion filed under Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e). The orders are not appeal-able 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, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Promise 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.