Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome HENRY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-01-15
Citations: 589 F. App'x 180
Docket Number: No. 14-7296
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome HENRY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerome HENRY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7296.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 1, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 15, 2015.
Jerome Henry, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerome Henry 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, 587 U.S. 822, 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 Henry has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny the motion for 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.