Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Phillip BOURQUE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-08-18
Citations: 391 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 09-8079
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Phillip BOURQUE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 391
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Michael Phillip BOURQUE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 09-8079.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2010.
Decided: Aug. 18, 2010.
Michael Phillip Bourque, Appellant Pro Se. Arthur Bradley Parham, Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Michael Phillip Bourque seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Bourque 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.