Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Henry BELL, a/k/a Amir El-Bey, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-27
Citations: 678 F. App'x 109
Docket Number: No. 16-6969
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Henry BELL, a/k/a Amir El-Bey, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 109–110

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Henry BELL, a/k/a Amir El-Bey, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6969
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 23, 2017
Decided: February 27, 2017
Charles Henry Bell, Appellant Pro Se. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Henry Bell 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. 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 Bell 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