Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Navron PONDS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-10-26
Citations: 111 F. App'x 689
Docket Number: No. 04-6867
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Navron PONDS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 111
Pages: 689–690

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Navron PONDS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6867.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 22, 2004.
Decided Oct. 26, 2004.
Navron Ponds, Appellant pro se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Navron Ponds seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000). An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding 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 movant 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, although the district court's conclusion that Ponds's § 2255 motion was untimely was erroneous, Ponds has failed to demonstrate that it is debatable whether he has stated valid claims of the denial of a constitutional right. 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