Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Wilford MORRISON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-02
Citations: 691 F. App'x 117
Docket Number: No. 16-6141
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Wilford MORRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 691
Pages: 117–118

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Wilford MORRISON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6141
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: June 2, 2017
Eric Wilford Morrison, Appellant Pro Se.
Erin Elizabeth Comerford, Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Wilford Morrison 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 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 démonstrate 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 Morrison 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