Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence PETERS, a/k/a The Dred, a/k/a Dred, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-31
Citations: 614 F. App'x 681
Docket Number: No. 15-6508
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence PETERS, a/k/a The Dred, a/k/a Dred, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 614
Pages: 681–681

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Terrence PETERS, a/k/a The Dred, a/k/a Dred, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6508.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 31, 2015.
Terrence Peters, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Terrence Peters 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, 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 Peters has not made the requisite showing. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant's brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Peters' informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court's disposition, Peters has forfeited appellate review of the court's order. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability 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.