Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Haissam NASHAR, a/k/a Sam, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-01
Citations: 472 F. App'x 149
Docket Number: No. 12-6060
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Haissam NASHAR, a/k/a Sam, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 472
Pages: 149–150

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Haissam NASHAR, a/k/a Sam, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-6060.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 26, 2012.
Decided: May 1, 2012.
Haissam Nashar, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Michel Smith, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Haissam Nashar seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Nashar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.