Court Opinion

ID: 1023226
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 23:34:39.674231+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:48.195229
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-6741

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

LARRY FRANKLIN PHILLIPS, a/k/a Shag,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Bryson City. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (2:02-cr-00104-6; 2:07-cv-00007-LHT)

Submitted: July 19, 2007                    Decided:   July 25, 2007

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and WILKINS, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Larry Franklin Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina,
for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Larry Franklin Phillips seeks to appeal the district

court’s order 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 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001).               We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Phillips has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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 -