Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lacey Leroy McCLAM, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-01
Citations: 642 F. App'x 292
Docket Number: No. 16-6049
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lacey Leroy McCLAM, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, arid DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 642
Pages: 292–293

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lacey Leroy McCLAM, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6049.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2016.
Decided: April 1, 2016.
Lacey Leroy McClam, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, arid DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lacey Leroy MeClam, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 MeClam 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.