Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Timothy Leotis MCCRAY, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-03-31
Citations: 174 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 06-6100
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Timothy Leotis MCCRAY, Defendant—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 174
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Timothy Leotis MCCRAY, Defendant—Appellee.
No. 06-6100.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 23, 2006.
Decided: March 31, 2006.
Timothy Leotis McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Timothy Leotis McCray seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 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 prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of his constitutional claims by the district court 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, 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 McCray 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