Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Randy Lindial QUATTLEBAUM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-06-03
Citations: 381 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 09-7460
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randy Lindial QUATTLEBAUM, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 381
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Randy Lindial QUATTLEBAUM, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7460.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 24, 2010.
Decided: June 3, 2010.
Randy Lindial Quattlebaum, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Randy Lindial Quattlebaum seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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 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 Quattlebaum 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.