Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan GIANNONE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-11-14
Citations: 453 F. App'x 340
Docket Number: No. 11-6577
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan GIANNONE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 453
Pages: 340–341

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jonathan GIANNONE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6577.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 25, 2011.
Decided: Nov. 14, 2011.
Jonathan Giannone, Appellant Pro Se. Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jonathan Giannone seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) 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) (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. 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 Giannone 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 be fore the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.