Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel Paul CZINSKI, a/k/a Chino, a/k/a Daniel Paul Lzinski, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-22
Citations: 266 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 07-7052
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel Paul CZINSKI, a/k/a Chino, a/k/a Daniel Paul Lzinski, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 237–238

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Daniel Paul CZINSKI, a/k/a Chino, a/k/a Daniel Paul Lzinski, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7052.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 31, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 22, 2008.
Daniel Paul Czinski, Appellant Pro Se. Patrick Friel Stokes, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Daniel Paul Czinski 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 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 Czinski has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Czinski's motion for 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.