Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quaishic Lamont CAPERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-11-26
Citations: 547 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 13-7450
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quaishic Lamont CAPERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 547
Pages: 221–222

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quaishic Lamont CAPERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7450.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 21, 2013.
Decided: Nov. 26, 2013.
Quaishic Lamont Capers, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Módica, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Quaishic Lamont Capers 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 certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (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).
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Capers 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.