Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Owen ODDMAN, a/k/a Star, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-02-25
Citations: 555 F. App'x 278
Docket Number: No. 13-7531
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Owen ODDMAN, a/k/a Star, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 555
Pages: 278–279

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Owen ODDMAN, a/k/a Star, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7531.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 20, 2014.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2014.
Owen Oddman, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Adam Christopher Morris, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Owen Oddman seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Oddman 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.