Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roland MARTIN, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-08-17
Citations: 141 F. App'x 170
Docket Number: No. 05-6323
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roland MARTIN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 141
Pages: 170–171

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Roland MARTIN, Jr., Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6323.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 3, 2005.
Decided: Aug. 17, 2005.
Roland Martin, Jr., Appellant pro se. David Ira Salem, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and MICHAEL, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Roland Martin, Jr., a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely filed. This order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 368-69, 374 n. 7 (4th Cir.2004). A certificate of appealability mil not issue absent "a substantial shoving 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is 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, 336-38, 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Martin 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