Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James DINKINS, a/k/a Miami, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-29
Citations: 569 F. App'x 159
Docket Number: No. 14-6089
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James DINKINS, a/k/a Miami, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 159–160

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James DINKINS, a/k/a Miami, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6089.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: April 29, 2014.
James Dinkins, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Robert Reeves Harding, As sistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Dinkins seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and its subsequent order denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (2012). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court's assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Dinkins 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.