Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice CROMRATIE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-13
Citations: 698 F. App'x 760
Docket Number: No. 17-6582
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice CROMRATIE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 760–760

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Maurice CROMRATIE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6582
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 19, 2017
Decided: October 13, 2017
Maurice Cromratie, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charity L. Wilson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Maurice Cromratie 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 appealability. See 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 Cromratie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motions for 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