Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Edward PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-21
Citations: 543 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 13-7205
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Edward PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 543
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marvin Edward PATRICK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7205.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 17, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 21, 2013.
Marvin Edward Patrick, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Rudolf A. Ren-fer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorneys, Kimberly Ann Moore, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DAVIS, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Edward Patrick seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) 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) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitution al 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 Patrick 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.