Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robby Truman SHERRILL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-06-01
Citations: 184 F. App'x 302
Docket Number: No. 06-6401
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robby Truman SHERRILL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 184
Pages: 302–303

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robby Truman SHERRILL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 06-6401.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 18, 2006.
Decided: June 1, 2006.
Robby Truman Sherrill, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Cave, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WIDENER and WILKINSON, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Robby Truman Sherrill seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as time-barred. 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 appeal-ability 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 the district court's assessment of his constitutional claims is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. 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 Sherrill 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.