Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony D. BARBER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-02-18
Citations: 88 F. App'x 568
Docket Number: No. 03-6442
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony D. BARBER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 88
Pages: 568–569

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Anthony D. BARBER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-6442.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Nov. 26, 2003.
Decided Feb. 18, 2004.
Anthony D. Barber, Appellant pro se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Anthony D. Barber seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his "Motion for Review of a Sentence Under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 and Notice of Appeal," which the district court construed as a motion to vacate under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 Barber 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