Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Lee DOUGLAS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-05-31
Citations: 228 F. App'x 361
Docket Number: No. 07-6279
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Lee DOUGLAS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 228
Pages: 361–362

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Lee DOUGLAS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6279.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2007.
Decided: May 31, 2007.
Michael Lee Douglas, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Lee Douglas seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the rec ommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. 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. 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 Douglas 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.