Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Ray LAMBERT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-02-26
Citations: 266 F. App'x 255
Docket Number: No. 07-7451
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Ray LAMBERT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 266
Pages: 255–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. William Ray LAMBERT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-7451.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 21, 2008.
Decided: Feb. 26, 2008.
William Ray Lambert, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Jennifer P. May-Parker, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
William Ray Lambert seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and his motion to amend. 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 Lambert has not made the requisite showing that he is entitled to a certificate of appealability. 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.