Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Phillip AMOS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-18
Citations: 429 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 10-7596
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Phillip AMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 429
Pages: 245–246

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harold Phillip AMOS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-7596.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 11, 2011.
Decided: May 18, 2011.
Harold Phillip Amos, Appellant Pro Se. William Chad Noel, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, GREGORY, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harold Phillip Amos seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on 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 appealability. 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 constitu tional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Amos 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.