Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Julius Nigel FREDERICKS, a/k/a Mike Williams, a/k/a Mike Francis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-05-18
Citations: 131 F. App'x 921
Docket Number: No. 05-6131
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julius Nigel FREDERICKS, a/k/a Mike Williams, a/k/a Mike Francis, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 131
Pages: 921–921

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Julius Nigel FREDERICKS, a/k/a Mike Williams, a/k/a Mike Francis, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 05-6131.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 12, 2005.
Decided: May 18, 2005.
Julius Nigel Fredericks, Appellant pro se.
Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(e).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Julius Nigel Fredericks seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as untimely. 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, 336-38, 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 Fredericks 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