Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Samuel HALL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-22
Citations: 672 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 16-7453
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Samuel HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 276–277

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joseph Samuel HALL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7453
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 20, 2016
Decided: December 22, 2016
Joseph Samuel Hall, Appellant Pro Se. David J. Pern, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joseph Samuel Hall 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 appealable 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 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 Hall 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