Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry CHARITY, III, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-17
Citations: 681 F. App'x 297
Docket Number: No. 16-7541
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry CHARITY, III, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 681
Pages: 297–297

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Harry CHARITY, III, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7541
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 14, 2017
Decided: March 17, 2017
Harry Charity, III, Appellant Pro Se. David Benjamin Joyce, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY; Lisa Lee Owings, FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Harry Charity, III, seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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. § 2258(c)(2) (2012). When the dis-tnct 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 Charity 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