Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Emmanuel S. MCCRAE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-12-12
Citations: 157 F. App'x 658
Docket Number: No. 05-6770
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emmanuel S. MCCRAE, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 157
Pages: 658–659

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Emmanuel S. MCCRAE, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6770.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 23, 2005.
Decided: Dec. 12, 2005.
Emmanuel S. McCrae, Appellant Pro Se. Felice McConnell Corpening, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Emmanuel S. McCrae, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), as untimely filed under § 2255 116(4). 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 mil 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that McCrae 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