UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 05-7146
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
TED A. NEFF,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Lacy H. Thornburg,
District Judge. (CR-03-7; CA-05-213)
Submitted: November 22, 2005 Decided: December 6, 2005
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ted A. Neff, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas Richard Ascik, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Ted A. Neff seeks to appeal the district court’s order
dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. 28
U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1) (2000). The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28
U.S.C. § 2253(c) (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 the district court’s assessment of his constitutional
claims is 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 Neff
has not demonstrated error in the district court’s procedural
ruling. 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 -