Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-10-20
Citations: 620 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 15-6874
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 620
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6874.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 2015.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2015.
Anthony Coleman, Appellant Pro Se. Cheryl L. Crumpton, Bryan E. Foreman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kevin Louis Rosenberg, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, An■tonio J. Reynolds, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Coleman seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 appeal-ability. 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 Coleman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Coleman's motion for 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.