Andy Lee WRIGHT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Rick JACKSON, Respondent-Appellee, 210 F. App'x 295

PER CURIAM: Andy Lee Wright seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief as untimely on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. 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).

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 Wright has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. In addition, we deny Wright’s pending motions to vacate judgment and dismiss his indictment and “for determination on both 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition and 28 U.S.C. § 2255 proceedings or,” in the alternative, to appoint counsel. 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.