Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobbie Ray EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-22
Citations: 672 F. App'x 260
Docket Number: No. 16-6763
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobbie Ray EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 260–261

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bobbie Ray EDWARDS, a/k/a Tank, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6763
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 14, 2016
Decided: December 22, 2016
Bobbie Ray Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Edward Bradenham, II, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobbie Ray Edwards seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 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. § 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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Edwards' motion for 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