Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. Richard Lee RICHIE, Defendant - Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-31
Citations: 124 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 04-7993
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Richard Lee RICHIE, Defendant — Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 124
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff — Appellee, v. Richard Lee RICHIE, Defendant — Appellant.
No. 04-7993.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted March 24, 2005.
Decided March 31, 2005.
Richard Lee Richie, Appellant pro se.
Before WIDENER and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Richard Lee Richie, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order finding his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion untimely. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable and that any dispositive procedural findings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See 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 (4th Cir.2001).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Richie has not shown the district court's finding of untimeliness to be debatable or wrong. 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