Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin Bryan BUCKHANAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-11-28
Citations: 155 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 05-7061
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin Bryan BUCKHANAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 155
Pages: 669–669

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benjamin Bryan BUCKHANAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7061.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2005.
Decided: Nov. 28, 2005.
Benjamin Bryan Buekhanan, Appellant Pro Se. John Leslie Brownlee, United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Benjamin Bryan Buekhanan seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as time-barred. 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 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 Buekhanan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealabihty 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