Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-30
Citations: 536 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 13-6830
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 327–327

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Barkley GARDNER, a/k/a Big Black, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6830.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2013.
Decided: July 30, 2013.
Barkley Gardner, Appellant pro se.
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Barkley Gardner seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion to reconsider the order denying his motion to amend his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The order is 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 ap-pealability 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 Gardner 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.