Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Franklin PHILLIPS, a/k/a Shag, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-07-25
Citations: 234 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 07-6741
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Franklin PHILLIPS, a/k/a Shag, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 159–159

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Larry Franklin PHILLIPS, a/k/a Shag, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6741.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2007.
Decided: July 25, 2007.
Larry Franklin Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Larry Franklin Phillips 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 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 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 Phillips has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.