Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Thomas MILLER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-11-20
Citations: 622 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 15-7249
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Thomas MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 622
Pages: 288–289

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Thomas MILLER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7249.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 17, 2015.
Decided: Nov. 20, 2015.
Gregory Thomas Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Nancy Spodick Healey, Assistant United States Attorney, Robert Traed, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlottes-ville, Virginia; Darcy Fanchon Katzin, United States Department of .Justice, Washington, D.C., for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Thomas Miller 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 certificate of ap-pealability. 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 disteict 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 Miller 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.