United States v. Rogers

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-7057 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus LAWRENCE TERRELL ROGERS, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-01-77; CA-04-824-5) Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005 Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Lawrence Terrell Rogers, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Jude Darrow, 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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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: Lawrence Terrell Rogers, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing 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). This standard is satisfied by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of Rogers’ constitutional claims 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 Rogers 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 -