Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven JOHNSON, a/k/a Too Low, a/k/a Tootie, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-12
Citations: 102 F. App'x 342
Docket Number: No. 04-6263
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven JOHNSON, a/k/a Too Low, a/k/a Tootie, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 342–343

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Steven JOHNSON, a/k/a Too Low, a/k/a Tootie, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6263.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 25, 2004.
Decided: July 12, 2004.
Steven Johnson, Appellant pro se.
Nancy Chastain Wicker, Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent'in this circuit.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:
Steven Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). The order is not appealable 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Johnson 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