Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Michael PERSONS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-02
Citations: 710 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 17-6830
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Michael PERSONS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Michael PERSONS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6830
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2017
Decided: February 2, 2018
David Michael Persons, Appellant Pro Se. Joshua Clarke Hanks, Assistant .United States Attorney, R. Booth Goodwin, II, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Michael Persons seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Persons 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 con tentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED