Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel J. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 573 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 14-6074
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel J. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 281–282

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Daniel J. BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6074.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2014.
Decided: May 29, 2014.
Frederick Theodore Heblich, Jr., Office of the Federal Public Defender, Char-lottesville, Virginia; Christine Madeleine Lee, Office of the Federal Public Defender, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellant. Nancy Spodick Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Daniel J. Brown 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 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 Brown has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Brown's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Brown's motion for appointment of counsel. 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.