Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Christopher OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-28
Citations: 579 F. App'x 161
Docket Number: No. 14-6471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Christopher OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 161–162

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Christopher OSBORNE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6471.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2014.
Decided: July 28, 2014.
Sean Christopher Osborne, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Kathleen Carnell, Office of the United States Attorney, Zachery T. Lee, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Christopher Osborne seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) 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) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Osborne 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.