Court Opinion

ID: 1025082
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-05 06:44:11.449986+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:27:38.996959
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 07-7451

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

WILLIAM RAY LAMBERT,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (7:05-cr-00013; 7:07-cv-00056)

Submitted:   February 21, 2008           Decided:   February 26, 2008

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

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Ray Lambert, Appellant Pro Se. Joe Exum, Jr., Jennifer P.
May-Parker, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              William Ray Lambert seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion and

his motion to amend.      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 Lambert has not

made the requisite showing that he is entitled to a certificate of

appealability. 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 -