Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis BURSTON, Jr., a/k/a Black, a/k/a David Smith, a/k/a Melvin Roberts, a/k/a David Brown, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-25
Citations: 686 F. App'x 189
Docket Number: No. 16-7741
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis BURSTON, Jr., a/k/a Black, a/k/a David Smith, a/k/a Melvin Roberts, a/k/a David Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 686
Pages: 189–189

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Curtis BURSTON, Jr., a/k/a Black, a/k/a David Smith, a/k/a Melvin Roberts, a/k/a David Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7741
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 20, 2017
Decided: April 25, 2017
Curtis Burston, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Curtis Burston, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Burston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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