Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Kenneth SPEED, a/k/a Kenneth Richard Godfrey, a/k/a Kenny Speed, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-29
Citations: 579 F. App'x 212
Docket Number: No. 14-6494
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Kenneth SPEED, a/k/a Kenneth Richard Godfrey, a/k/a Kenny Speed, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before FLOYD and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 579
Pages: 212–212

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Kenneth SPEED, a/k/a Kenneth Richard Godfrey, a/k/a Kenny Speed, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6494.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 24, 2014.
Decided: July 29, 2014.
Larry Kenneth Speed, Appellant Pro Se. Randy Carl Stoker, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before FLOYD and THACKER, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Larry Kenneth Speed seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 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. § 2258(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 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 Speed 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.