Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norvel Lee WOODSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-22
Citations: 589 F. App'x 85
Docket Number: No. 14-7136
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norvel Lee WOODSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 85–86

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Norvel Lee WOODSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7136.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 18, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 22, 2014.
Norvel Lee Woodson, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, John J. Frail, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Norvel Lee Woodson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial ofa 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 assess ment 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 Woodson 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.