Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Khary Jamal ANCRUM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-23
Citations: 274 F. App'x 335
Docket Number: No. 08-6077
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Khary Jamal ANCRUM, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 335–336

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Khary Jamal ANCRUM, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6077.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 23, 2008.
Khary Jamal Ancrum, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Khary Jamal Ancrum seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 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 Ancrum 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.