Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Eugene BARRENTINE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-01
Citations: 634 F. App'x 937
Docket Number: No. 15-7607
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Eugene BARRENTINE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 634
Pages: 937–937

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Matthew Eugene BARRENTINE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7607.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 25, 2016.
Decided: March 1, 2016.
Matthew Eugene Barrentine, Appellant Pro Se. Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD and HARRIS, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Matthew Eugene Barrentine seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as unauthorized and successive. 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 Barrentine 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.