Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Dewayne GILLIS, a/k/a Toney Gillis, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-27
Citations: 399 F. App'x 817
Docket Number: No. 10-6632
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Dewayne GILLIS, a/k/a Toney Gillis, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 399
Pages: 817–818

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony Dewayne GILLIS, a/k/a Toney Gillis, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6632.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 19, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 27, 2010.
Anthony Dewayne Gillis, Appellant Pro Se. John Staige Davis, V, Norval George Metcalf, Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Dewayne Gillis seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). 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 Gillis 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.