Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin MILLER, a/k/a Kevin Millen, a/k/a Cakes, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-19
Citations: 475 F. App'x 905
Docket Number: No. 11-7054
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kevin MILLER, a/k/a Kevin Millen, a/k/a Cakes, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 905–905

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Kevin MILLER, a/k/a Kevin Millen, a/k/a Cakes, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-7054.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 15, 2012.
Decided: March 19, 2012.
Kevin Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Debra Lynn Dwyer, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Miller seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.