Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Kotay GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-11-29
Citations: 490 F. App'x 592
Docket Number: No. 11-7287
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Kotay GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 490
Pages: 592–593

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Carl Kotay GRAHAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7287.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 16, 2012.
Decided: Nov. 29, 2012.
Carl Kotay Graham, Appellant Pro Se. Lisa Blue Boggs, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Carl Kotay Graham seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) 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 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 prison er 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 Graham has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Graham's motion to appoint counsel, 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.