Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick J. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-03-10
Citations: 594 F. App'x 218
Docket Number: No. 14-7429
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick J. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 594
Pages: 218–219

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Frederick J. SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7429.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 19, 2015.
Decided: March 10, 2015.
Frederick J. Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Arlen Jagels, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Frederick J. Smith seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(e)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 Smith 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.