Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Charles COX, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-22
Citations: 709 F. App'x 199
Docket Number: No. 17-7162
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Charles COX, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 709
Pages: 199–199

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Charles COX, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7162
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 18, 2018
Decided: January 22, 2018
James Charles Cox, Jr.,' Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Charles Cox, Jr., 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 Cox 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