Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bill Winfield CONARD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-01-20
Citations: 119 F. App'x 549
Docket Number: No. 04-7461
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bill Winfield CONARD, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 119
Pages: 549–550

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Bill Winfield CONARD, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-7461.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Jan. 13, 2005.
Decided Jan. 20, 2005.
Bill Winfield Conard, Appellant pro se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.
Bill Winfield Conard seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) on the grounds that it was filed beyond the one-year limit for such actions. 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 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Conard 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