Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Eugene SUMNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-08-24
Citations: 195 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 05-7424
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Eugene SUMNER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 195
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Christopher Eugene SUMNER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7424.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 4, 2006.
Decided: Aug. 24, 2006.
Christopher Eugene Sumner, Appellant Pro Se. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Eugene Sumner seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Sumner has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.