Court Opinion

ID: 1017054
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 21:58:39.016989+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:52.969302
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                               No. 05-6231

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WALTER R.C. STAMPER,

                                                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District
Judge. (CR-96-52-JPJ; CA-04-233-JPJ)

Submitted:   August 12, 2005                 Decided:   August 30, 2005

Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Walter R.C. Stamper, Appellant Pro Se.    Randy Ramseyer, United
States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:

               Walter R.C. Stamper seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) as

untimely and denying his motion for reconsideration filed pursuant

to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 and 60.           The orders are not appealable unless

a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363,

370 (4th Cir. 2004). 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 (2003);

Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d

676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have independently reviewed the

record    and    conclude      that   Stamper   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

                                        - 2 -