Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony ROWE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-15
Citations: 697 F. App'x 207
Docket Number: No. 17-6309
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 207–208

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. John Anthony ROWE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6309
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 7, 2017
Decided: September 15, 2017
John Anthony Rowe, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Freeman Greene, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Anthony Rowe 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 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 Rowe 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