Court Opinion

ID: 1018808
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:26:20.293223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:17:57.323954
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 06-6100

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

TIMOTHY LEOTIS MCCRAY,

                                               Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior
District Judge. (5:02-CR-00011-H; 5:05-CV-458-H)

Submitted: March 23, 2006                   Decided: March 31, 2006

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Leotis McCray, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

                                     - 2 -