Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael F. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-29
Citations: 671 F. App'x 102
Docket Number: No. 16-6748
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael F. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 102–103

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael F. HARRIS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6748
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: November 29, 2016
Michael F. Harris, Appellant Pro Se. Jessica D. Aber, Office of the United States Attorney, Michael Ronald Gill, Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Laura Colombell Marshall, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael F. Harris 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. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifi cate 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 Harris has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Harris' motion for resettlement, 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