Court Opinion

ID: 1017681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:08:51.132012+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:36:43.300667
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                            No. 05-6351

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

ANTHONY MARK REEL,

                                            Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Jerome B. Friedman, District
Judge. (CA-04-23)

Submitted:   November 17, 2005         Decided:     November 23, 2005

Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Anthony Mark Reel, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Evan DePadilla,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

           Anthony Mark Reel 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 both that the

district   court’s   assessment   of   the   constitutional    claims   is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural rulings by

the district court are also debatable or wrong.           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 Reel

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 -