UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7891
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
WILLIAM LAMONT SLATE, a/k/a Chicago,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, District
Judge. (CR-97-41; CA-04-127-4)
Submitted: March 2, 2005 Decided: March 16, 2005
Before WILKINSON, LUTTIG, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Lamont Slate, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Stephen David Schiller, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia; Michael R. Smythers, Assistant United States
Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
William Lamont Slate seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying as untimely his motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2000). 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
his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive
procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or
wrong. See 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 Slate 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 -