Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Javier Ledezma GONZALEZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-06-19
Citations: 229 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 07-6218
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Javier Ledezma GONZALEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 229
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Javier Ledezma GONZALEZ, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6218.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 21, 2007.
Decided: June 19, 2007.
Javier Ledezma Gonzalez, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Javier Ledezma Gonzalez seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. 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 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 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 Gonzalez has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Gonzalez's "Motion to Extend Time For Filing a Motion Under 28 § 2255." 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.