Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Alphonzo WILSON, a/k/a TT, Defendant -Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-27
Citations: 672 F. App'x 277
Docket Number: No. 16-6962
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Alphonzo WILSON, a/k/a TT, Defendant -Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 277–278

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone Alphonzo WILSON, a/k/a TT, Defendant -Appellant.
No. 16-6962
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 20, 2016
Decided: December 27, 2016
Tyrone Alphonzo Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Amy Elizabeth Cross, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Alphonzo Wilson seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 Wilson 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