Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Stuart KOONTZ, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-08-29
Citations: 697 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 17-6619
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Stuart KOONTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald Stuart KOONTZ, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6619
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 24, 2017
Decided: August 29, 2017
Donald Stuart Koontz, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ramas-wamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Eric Lloyd Iverson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:.
Donald Stuart Koontz seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 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 light. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Koontz has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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