Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Edward DOTSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-03-20
Citations: 318 F. App'x 229
Docket Number: No. 08-6471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brian Edward DOTSON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 318
Pages: 229–229

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Brian Edward DOTSON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6471.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 17, 2009.
Decided: March 20, 2009.
Brian Edward Dotson, Appellant Pro Se. Tamera Lynn Fine, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brian Edward Dotson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2008) motion. The order is not appeal-able 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 dis-positive 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 Dotson 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.