Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lance Bishop STEGLICH, 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 155
Docket Number: No. 07-6473
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lance Bishop STEGLICH, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 234
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Lance Bishop STEGLICH, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6473.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2007.
Decided: July 25, 2007.
Lance Bishop Steglich, Appellant Pro Se. Ray Burton Fitzgerald, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottes-ville, Virginia, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Lance Bishop Steglich 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 ap-pealability. 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 Steglich 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.