Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie M. HARGROVE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-24
Citations: 699 F. App'x 246
Docket Number: No. 17-6573
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie M. HARGROVE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 699
Pages: 246–247

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jamie M. HARGROVE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6573
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 19, 2017
Decided: October 24, 2017
Jamie M. Hargrove, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Edward D. Gray, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jamie M. Hargrove seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28. U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The -order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). 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 Hargrove 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