Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mark Benjamin HEMPHILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-15
Citations: 123 F. App'x 124
Docket Number: No. 04-8013
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Benjamin HEMPHILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 124–125

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Mark Benjamin HEMPHILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-8013.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 10, 2005.
Decided: March 15, 2005.
Mark Benjamin Hemphill, Appellant pro se.
Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Mark Benjamin Hemphill seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely. 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 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, 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 Hemphill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Hemphill's motion for production of documents, 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