Case Name: Michael BELSER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-28
Citations: 569 F. App'x 144
Docket Number: No. 13-7950
Parties: Michael BELSER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 144–144

Head Matter:
Michael BELSER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 13-7950.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: April 28, 2014.
Michael Belser, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Michael Belser seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, construing the action as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable un-
less a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Belser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.