Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory HATT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-02
Citations: 710 F. App'x 585
Docket Number: No. 17-7557
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory HATT, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 585–585

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory HATT, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7557
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 30, 2018
Decided: February 2, 2018
Gregory Hatt, Appellant Pro Se, John Farrell Butler, Alyssa Kate Nichol, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit,
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Hatt 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. § 2263(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 Hatt 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