Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Devon MCMANUS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-07
Citations: 671 F. App'x 130
Docket Number: No. 16-6668
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Devon MCMANUS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 130–130

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Devon MCMANUS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6668
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 29, 2016
Decided: December 7, 2016
William Devon McManus, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ra-maswamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Devon McManus 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. § 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 McManus 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