UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-8013
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
MARK BENJAMIN HEMPHILL,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Rock Hill. Dennis W. Shedd and Cameron McGowan
Currie, District Judges. (CR-99-659; CA-04-890)
Submitted: March 10, 2005 Decided: March 15, 2005
Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Mark Benjamin Hemphill, Appellant Pro Se. Marshall Prince, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Mark Benjamin Hemphill seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255 (2000) as untimely. 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
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 (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 Hemphill has not made the requisite
showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Hemphill’s motion for production of documents, 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 -