Court Opinion

ID: 1020414
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2013-07-04 22:50:38.24585+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:04:04.524206
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 06-6520

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                                               Plaintiff - Appellee,

          versus

WILLIE ANDREW COLEMAN,

                                             Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, Senior
District Judge. (3:96-cr-00066-14; 3:06-cv-00010)

Submitted: August 31, 2006                 Decided: September 6, 2006

Before MICHAEL, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Willie     Andrew   Coleman     seeks   to    appeal   the    district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as

untimely.    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 Coleman 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 -