Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie Alexander JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-10-18
Citations: 203 F. App'x 443
Docket Number: No. 06-7074
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie Alexander JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 203
Pages: 443–444

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie Alexander JOHNSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 06-7074.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 4, 2006.
Decided: Oct. 18, 2006.
Jamie Alexander Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. William Frederick Gould, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottes-ville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jamie Alexander Johnson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. 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 substan tial 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 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.