Case Name: Maurice Calvin DOUGLAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-21
Citations: 120 F. App'x 446
Docket Number: No. 04-7778
Parties: Maurice Calvin DOUGLAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 120
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Maurice Calvin DOUGLAS, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-7778.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
Decided Jan. 21, 2005.
Maurice Calvin Douglas, Jr., pro se.
Michael Steven Dry, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Maurice Calvin Douglas, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 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 rec ord and conclude that Douglas 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