Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodoras Andreas ROUSSOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-03
Citations: 349 F. App'x 864
Docket Number: No. 09-7428
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodoras Andreas ROUSSOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 349
Pages: 864–865

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Theodoras Andreas ROUSSOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7428.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 21, 2009.
Decided: Nov. 3, 2009.
Matthew McGavock Robinson, Robinson & Brandt, PSC, Covington, Kentucky, for Appellant. William Jacob Watkins, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Theodoras Andreas Roussos 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 Roussos 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.