Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janeek WIGGAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-25
Citations: 633 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 15-7462
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janeek WIGGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Janeek WIGGAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7462.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2016.
Janeek Wiggan, Appellant Pro Se. John J. Frail, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Janeek Wiggan seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying Wiggan's 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 substan tial 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 Wiggan 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.