Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kittrell Bernard DECATOR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-01
Citations: 101 F. App'x 924
Docket Number: No. 04-6310
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kittrell Bernard DECATOR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 924–925

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kittrell Bernard DECATOR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6310.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted June 24, 2004.
Decided July 1, 2004.
Kittrell Bernard Decator, Appellant pro se. James G. Warwick, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Kittrell Bernard Decator appeals the district court's order dismissing as untimely his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) and a subsequent order denying his motion to alter or amend the judgment. 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 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 Decator 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