Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson Lee GARRETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-22
Citations: 707 F. App'x 142
Docket Number: No. 17-6883
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson Lee GARRETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 142–143

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wilson Lee GARRETT, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6883
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 15, 2017
Decided: December 22, 2017
Wilson Lee Garrett, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Ray Daniel McKenzie, Assistant United States Attorneys, John Michael Pellettieri, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and AGEE and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wilson Lee Garrett, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 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 Garrett has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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