Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Orville CUPP, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-06-24
Citations: 328 F. App'x 252
Docket Number: No. 09-6245
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven Orville CUPP, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 328
Pages: 252–252

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven Orville CUPP, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-6245.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 18, 2009.
Decided: June 24, 2009.
Steven Cupp, Appellant Pro Se. Jeb Thomas Terrien, Assistant United States Attorney, Harrisonburg, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Orville Cupp seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion as untimely filed. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 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 Cupp 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.