Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Edward MOSS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-09-07
Citations: 240 F. App'x 607
Docket Number: No. 07-6689
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Edward MOSS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 240
Pages: 607–608

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Charles Edward MOSS, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6689.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 30, 2007.
Decided: Sept. 7, 2007.
Charles Edward Moss, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Charles Edward Moss, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 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.Edüd 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moss 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.