Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Renato FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-07-30
Citations: 286 F. App'x 77
Docket Number: No. 08-6322
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Renato FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 286
Pages: 77–78

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joel Renato FLOWERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6322.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 8, 2008.
Decided: July 30, 2008.
Joel Renato Flowers, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Joel Renato Flowers seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his motion 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 ap-pealability 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 disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 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 Flowers 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.