Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Myron SLAUGHTER, a/k/a Wink, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-03-10
Citations: 123 F. App'x 111
Docket Number: No. 04-7683
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Myron SLAUGHTER, a/k/a Wink, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 123
Pages: 111–111

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Myron SLAUGHTER, a/k/a Wink, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7683.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Feb. 18, 2005.
Decided March 10, 2005.
Myron Slaughter, Appellant pro se. Janet S. Reincke, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Myron Slaughter 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, 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 Slaughter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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