Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Edward WAMPLER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-20
Citations: 296 F. App'x 354
Docket Number: No. 08-7266
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Edward WAMPLER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 296
Pages: 354–354

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Cecil Edward WAMPLER, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7266.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2008.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2008.
Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Cecil Edward Wampler, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 Wampler 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.