Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Pedro Cantu RIOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-01-25
Citations: 214 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 06-6416
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pedro Cantu RIOS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 214
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Pedro Cantu RIOS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6416.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2006.
Decided: Jan. 25, 2007.
Pedro Cantu Rios, Appellant Pro Se.
Kimlani Murray Ford, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, NC, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Pedro Cantu Rios 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certifícate 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.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 Rios 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.