Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Charles THERRIEN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-12-03
Citations: 353 F. App'x 821
Docket Number: No. 09-7493
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Charles THERRIEN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 353
Pages: 821–822

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Charles THERRIEN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-7493.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 19, 2009.
Decided: Dec. 3, 2009.
Kenneth Charles Therrien, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alan Lance Crick, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Charles Therrien, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 disposi-tive 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.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Therrien has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Therrien's motion for a certificate of ap-pealability, dismiss the appeal, and deny his motion for extension of time to supplement his appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.