Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey CLAWSON, a/k/a Jeff Carter, a/k/a Greg Carter, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-02-23
Citations: 218 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 06-7777
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey CLAWSON, a/k/a Jeff Carter, a/k/a Greg Carter, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 218
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey CLAWSON, a/k/a Jeff Carter, a/k/a Greg Carter, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7777.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 15, 2007.
Decided: Feb. 23, 2007.
Jeffrey Clawson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the Unit ed States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey Clawson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The oi-der is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Clawson 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.