Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Givionne Richardo JORDAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2007-04-06
Citations: 223 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 07-6093
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Givionne Richardo JORDAN, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 223
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Givionne Richardo JORDAN, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 07-6093.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2007.
Decided: April 6, 2007.
Givionne Richardo Jordan, Appellant Pro Se. Carlton R. Bourne, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Givionne Richardo Jordan 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 consti tutional 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 dis-positive 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 Jordan has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.