Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Shamsadeen Ibn PURVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-14
Citations: 388 F. App'x 254
Docket Number: No. 08-6867
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shamsadeen Ibn PURVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 388
Pages: 254–255

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Shamsadeen Ibn PURVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 08-6867.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2010.
Decided: July 14, 2010.
Shamsadeen Ibn Purvis, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Richard Pauze, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and KING and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Shamsadeen Ibn Purvis seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 Purvis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.