Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert David PRYOR, a/k/a Yard Owl, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-10-22
Citations: 585 F. App'x 36
Docket Number: No. 14-6772
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert David PRYOR, a/k/a Yard Owl, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 36–37

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert David PRYOR, a/k/a Yard Owl, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6772.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 14, 2014.
Decided: Oct. 22, 2014.
Robert David Pryor, Appellant Pro Se. James Hunter May, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert David Pryor 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 appeal-ability. 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 Pryor has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Pryor's motion for a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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.