Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carlos JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-02
Citations: 156 F. App'x 589
Docket Number: No. 05-6670
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 156
Pages: 589–589

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Carlos JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 05-6670.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 22, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 2, 2005.
Carlos Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Carlos Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and denying his motion to alter or amend judgment. 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 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, 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 his 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