Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benny FULLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-10-04
Citations: 144 F. App'x 345
Docket Number: No. 05-7185
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benny FULLER, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 144
Pages: 345–346

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Benny FULLER, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-7185.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 27, 2005.
Decided: Oct. 4, 2005.
Benny Fuller, Appellant pro se. David Calhoun Stephens, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Benny Fuller, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as time-barred under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 both that the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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 Fuller 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