Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland Lee WATTS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-23
Citations: 102 F. App'x 816
Docket Number: No. 04-6916
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland Lee WATTS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 816–816

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland Lee WATTS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6916.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 23, 2004.
Roland Lee Watts, Jr., Appellant pro se.
Marshall Prince, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roland Lee Watts, Jr. 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 Watts 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