Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Rhondu SMITHWICK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-05-12
Citations: 378 F. App'x 355
Docket Number: No. 10-6071
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Rhondu SMITHWICK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 378
Pages: 355–355

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shawn Rhondu SMITHWICK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6071.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 13, 2010.
Decided: May 12, 2010.
Shawn Rhondu Smithwiek, Appellant Pro Se. Anne Margaret Hayes, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appel-lee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shawn Rhondu Smithwiek seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 disposi-tive 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 Smithwiek 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.