Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Terry HOWELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-12-04
Citations: 208 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 06-7670
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Terry HOWELL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 208
Pages: 269–269

Head Matter:
This case was not selected for publication in the Federal Reporter UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. James Terry HOWELL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-7670.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2006.
Decided: Dec. 4, 2006.
James Terry Howell, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Terry Howell seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of a magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dis-positive 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 Howell 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.