Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Lamont SLATE, a/k/a Chicago, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-16
Citations: 130 F. App'x 628
Docket Number: No. 04-7891
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Lamont SLATE, a/k/a Chicago, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 130
Pages: 628–629

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Lamont SLATE, a/k/a Chicago, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-7891.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 2, 2005.
Decided: March 16, 2005.
William Lamont Slate, Appellant pro se.
Peter Sinclair Duffey, Stephen David Schiller, Office of the United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia; Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Lamont Slate seeks to appeal the district court's order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appeal-able 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 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, 336-38, 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 Slate 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED