Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terricious Burnell BROOKS, a/k/a Turkey, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-14
Citations: 654 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 16-6004
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terricious Burnell BROOKS, a/k/a Turkey, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 654
Pages: 138–138

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terricious Burnell BROOKS, a/k/a Turkey, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6004
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2016
Decided: June 14, 2016
Terricious Burnell Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terricious Burnell Brooks seeks to appeal the district court's order adopting in part 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 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 Brooks 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.