Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry McLAMB, a/k/a Lee Wright Henry, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2003-07-31
Citations: 70 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 03-6826
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry McLAMB, a/k/a Lee Wright Henry, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 70
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry McLAMB, a/k/a Lee Wright Henry, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 03-6826.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted July 24, 2003.
Decided July 31, 2003.
Henry McLamb, Appellant Pro Se. Peter W. Kellen, Special Agent, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Henry McLamb seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 1040, 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.), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 941, 122 S.Ct. 318, 151 L.Ed.2d 237 (2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McLamb 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.