Court Opinion

ID: 1017630
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:08:01.145737+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:09.736114
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6731

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

JOHN LENWOOD WRIGHT, a/k/a June Bug,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District
Judge. (CR-02-539; CA-04-1370-1)

Submitted:   September 14, 2005        Decided:     November 16, 2005

Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

John Lenwood Wright, Appellant Pro Se. Kimberly Riley Pedersen,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

          John Lenwood Wright 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 the district court’s assessment of his

constitutional   claims   is   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 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

                                 - 2 -