Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Irvin WHITE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-26
Citations: 647 F. App'x 206
Docket Number: No. 15-7928
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Irvin WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 647
Pages: 206–206

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Irvin WHITE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7928.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2016.
Decided: April 26, 2016.
Samuel Irvin White, Appellant Pro Se. Stephanie Bibighaus Hammerstrom, Office of the United States Attorney, Lauren Elyse Marziani, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Irvin White seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 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.Edüd 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 White 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.