Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean Curtis SAWYER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-24
Citations: 452 F. App'x 347
Docket Number: No. 11-6134
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean Curtis SAWYER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 452
Pages: 347–348

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dean Curtis SAWYER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6134.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 6, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 24, 2011.
Dean Curtis Sawyer, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dean Curtis Sawyer seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Sawyer has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Sawyer's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Sawyer's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.