United States v. Rogers , 157 F. App'x 592 ( 2005 )

UNPUBLISHED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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 -