Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ian Ralph BLACKSTOCK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-12-20
Citations: 405 F. App'x 727
Docket Number: No. 08-8546
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ian Ralph BLACKSTOCK, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 405
Pages: 727–728

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Ian Ralph BLACKSTOCK, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-8546.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 10, 2010.
Decided: Dec. 20, 2010.
Ian Ralph Blackstock, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ian Ralph Blackstock seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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. 478, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see MillerEl 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 Blackstock has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.