Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dywan KING, aka Doughboy, aka DJ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-12-20
Citations: 258 F. App'x 553
Docket Number: No. 07-7213
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dywan KING, aka Doughboy, aka DJ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 258
Pages: 553–554

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dywan KING, aka Doughboy, aka DJ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 07-7213.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 13, 2007.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2007.
Dywan King, Appellant Pro Se. Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Dywan King 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 King 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.