Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Rosario WILSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-22
Citations: 459 F. App'x 240
Docket Number: No. 11-7007
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Rosario WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 459
Pages: 240–241

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence Rosario WILSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7007.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 6, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2011.
Terrence Rosario Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Felice McConnell Corpening, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Rosario Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529. U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wilson 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.