Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joan MARSH, a/k/a Joan Henry, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-25
Citations: 639 F. App'x 180
Docket Number: No. 15-7812
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joan MARSH, a/k/a Joan Henry, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 639
Pages: 180–181

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Joan MARSH, a/k/a Joan Henry, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7812.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 21, 2016.
Decided: April 25, 2016.
Joan Marsh, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United States Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia; Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Joan Marsh seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The orders are 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 Marsh 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.