Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie Vann WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-10-29
Citations: 298 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 08-7207
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie Vann WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 298
Pages: 287–287

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lonnie Vann WRIGHT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 08-7207.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Oct. 21, 2008.
Decided Oct. 29, 2008.
Lonnie Vann Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Randall Stuart Galyon, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Lonnie Vann Wright seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive 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 Wright 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