Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Melvin B. WILKERSON, a/k/a Melvin Coleman, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-23
Citations: 274 F. App'x 332
Docket Number: No. 08-6095
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melvin B. WILKERSON, a/k/a Melvin Coleman, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 332–333

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Melvin B. WILKERSON, a/k/a Melvin Coleman, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6095.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 23, 2008.
Melvin B. Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Melvin B. Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely and successive. 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 ap-pealability 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 Wilkerson 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.