Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joshua Benjamin SUTPHIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-14
Citations: 133 F. App'x 887
Docket Number: No. 04-8010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joshua Benjamin SUTPHIN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 133
Pages: 887–888

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Joshua Benjamin SUTPHIN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-8010.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 9, 2005.
Decided: June 14, 2005.
Joshua Benjamin Sutphin, Appellant pro se.
Craig Jon Jacobsen, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joshua Benjamin Sutphin seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely. 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 mil 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 Sutphin 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