Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James GADSEN, a/k/a Robert James, a/k/a Axe-Head, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-25
Citations: 696 F. App'x 633
Docket Number: No. 17-6055
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James GADSEN, a/k/a Robert James, a/k/a Axe-Head, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 696
Pages: 633–634

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert James GADSEN, a/k/a Robert James, a/k/a Axe-Head, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6055
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 3, 2017
Decided: August 25, 2017
Emily Deck Harrill, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellant. Sean Kittrell, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert James Gadsen 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 ap-pealability. 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 Gadsen has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny his motion 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