Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-02
Citations: 671 F. App'x 122
Docket Number: No. 16-7026
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 122–122

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Derrick SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7026
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: December 2, 2016
Derrick Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Burke Moorman, William Jacob Watkins, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Derrick Simmons seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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 Simmons has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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