Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Adrian HAIRSTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-07-20
Citations: 102 F. App'x 795
Docket Number: No. 03-7838
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Adrian HAIRSTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 102
Pages: 795–795

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Michael Adrian HAIRSTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 03-7838.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 15, 2004.
Decided: July 20, 2004.
Michael Adrian Hairston, Appellant pro se.
David Paul Folmar, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Michael Adrian Hairston seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting a magistrate judge's recommendation to deny his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as untimely. This 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, 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 Hairston 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