Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Damian Antonio MURPHY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-12
Citations: 449 F. App'x 307
Docket Number: No. 11-6382
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Damian Antonio MURPHY, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 307–308

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Damian Antonio MURPHY, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-6382.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 15, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 12, 2011.
Damian Antonio Murphy, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Damian Antonio Murphy seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certifícate 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 Murphy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Murphy's motion for a certificate of ap-pealability 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.