Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Marquel Dushuan RILEY, a/k/a Mark Riley, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-02-27
Citations: 467 F. App'x 210
Docket Number: No. 11-7337
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marquel Dushuan RILEY, a/k/a Mark Riley, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 467
Pages: 210–211

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Marquel Dushuan RILEY, a/k/a Mark Riley, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-7337.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 23, 2012.
Decided: Feb. 27, 2012.
Marquel Dushuan Riley, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C. Moore, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marquel Dushuan Riley seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, and denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) 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) (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 Riley 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.