Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad Ashraf MOHAMMAD-OMAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-13
Citations: 465 F. App'x 226
Docket Number: No. 11-7068
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad Ashraf MOHAMMAD-OMAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 465
Pages: 226–227

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad Ashraf MOHAMMAD-OMAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7068.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 9, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 13, 2012.
Mohammad Ashraf Mohammad-Omar, Appellant Pro Se. Lawrence Joseph Leis-er, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Ashraf Mohammad-Omar seeks to appeal the district court's order denying him leave to amend his previously denied 28 U.S.CA. § 2255 (West Supp. 2011) 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 ap-pealability 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 Mohammad-Omar has not made the requisite showing. 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.