Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lionel SISK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 437 F. App'x 230
Docket Number: No. 10-6635
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lionel SISK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 230–231

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lionel SISK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6635.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2011.
Decided: July 5, 2011.
Robert Lionel Sisk, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, NC, for Appel-lee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lionel Sisk seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) 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.
In his informal brief, Sisk has failed to address the district court's reasons for denying his motion. Therefore, Sisk has forfeited appellate review of the district court's rulings. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appeala-bility 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.