Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rondall Clyde MIXSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-13
Citations: 397 F. App'x 868
Docket Number: No. 10-6923
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rondall Clyde MIXSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 397
Pages: 868–869

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rondall Clyde MIXSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6923.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 30, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 13, 2010.
Rondall Clyde Mixson, Appellant pro se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rondall Clyde Mixson 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 certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appeal-ability 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 Mixson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Mixson's motions to produce court records and to appoint counsel. 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.