Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jeffrey A. HOPKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-03-05
Citations: 369 F. App'x 436
Docket Number: No. 09-8235
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey A. HOPKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 369
Pages: 436–437

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jeffrey A. HOPKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-8235.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2010.
Decided: March 5, 2010.
Jeffrey A. Hopkins, Appellant Pro Se. Michael E. Savage, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Hopkins seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely filed his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion, denying his motion for a certificate of appealability, and denying his subsequent motion for reconsideration of the order denying a certificate of ap-pealability. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Hopkins 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.