Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Silas Thomas KING, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-02
Citations: 599 F. App'x 81
Docket Number: No. 14-7701
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Silas Thomas KING, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 81–82

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Silas Thomas KING, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7701.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 26, 2015.
Decided: April 2, 2015.
Silas Thomas King, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Silas Thomas King seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is 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 King 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.