Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant Everett PLANTER, a/k/a B.P., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-29
Citations: 515 F. App'x 232
Docket Number: No. 12-8159
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant Everett PLANTER, a/k/a B.P., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 515
Pages: 232–233

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bryant Everett PLANTER, a/k/a B.P., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-8159.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 26, 2013.
Decided: March 29, 2013.
Bryant Everett Planter, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Scott W. Putney, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before DUNCAN, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bryant Everett Planter seeks to appeal the district court's order 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 ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substan tial 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 Planter 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.