Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HILL, a/k/a Mohawk, a/k/a Mo, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-04-24
Citations: 274 F. App'x 279
Docket Number: No. 08-6323
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HILL, a/k/a Mohawk, a/k/a Mo, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 274
Pages: 279–280

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William HILL, a/k/a Mohawk, a/k/a Mo, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-6323.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 17, 2008.
Decided: April 24, 2008.
William Hill, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Philip Rosenberg, United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 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. See 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 Hill has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.