Michael TALIEFERRO, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Joseph P. SACCHET, Warden; Attorney General for the State of Maryland, Respondents-Appellees, 186 F. App'x 386

PER CURIAM: Michael Talieferro appeals the district court’s orders denying his motions to vacate and set aside judgment or, in the alternative, motion for leave to amend the court’s denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The orders are 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Talieferro has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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. To the extent Talieferro seeks to appeal the district court’s original denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition, his appeal is untimely.