Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barrett Lee CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-04
Citations: 178 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 05-7828
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Barrett Lee CLARK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 178
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Barrett Lee CLARK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7828.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2006.
Decided: May 4, 2006.
Barrett Lee Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Róse, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Barrett Lee Clark, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely filed. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a post-conviction proceeding 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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