Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Garfield RICKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-10-15
Citations: 542 F. App'x 238
Docket Number: No. 13-6998
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Garfield RICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 542
Pages: 238–239

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Garfield RICKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6998.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 25, 2013.
Decided: Oct. 15, 2013.
Kevin Garfield Ricks, Appellant, pro se. Alicia J. Yass, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appel-lee.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Garfield Ricks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). When the dis trict 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 Ricks 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.
In deciding whether Ricks is entitled to a certificate of appealability, we have considered all relevant filings Ricks made in the district court and in this court, including his filings related to his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motions.