Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Darryl GRIFFIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-18
Citations: 100 F. App'x 923
Docket Number: No. 04-6366
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darryl GRIFFIN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 100
Pages: 923–923

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Darryl GRIFFIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6366.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 10, 2004.
Decided June 18, 2004.
Darryl Griffin, Appellant pro se. Jane J. Jackson, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Darryl Griffin, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as untimely, and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Griffin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny certificates 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