Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael James CASSIDY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-07-26
Citations: 139 F. App'x 571
Docket Number: No. 05-6413
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael James CASSIDY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 139
Pages: 571–571

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael James CASSIDY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6413.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 14, 2005.
Decided: July 26, 2005.
Michael James Cassidy, Appellant pro se. Douglas Cannon, Assistant United States Attorney, Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael James Cassidy seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year limitation period for such actions. 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cassidy 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