Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Willie Edward JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-11-15
Citations: 112 F. App'x 317
Docket Number: No. 04-6922
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Willie Edward JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 112
Pages: 317–317

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Willie Edward JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 04-6922.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 18, 2004.
Decided Nov. 15, 2004.
Willie Edward Jenkins, Appellant pro se. Jennifer Marie Hoefling, Assistant United States Attorney, Carl Horn III, Robert James Conrad, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Willie Edward Jenkins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). 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 for claims addressed by a district court 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 Jenkins has not made the requisite showing, as he has failed to demonstrate that the district court erred by finding his motion untimely. 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