Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vytlingum KANDASAWMI, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-08-25
Citations: 613 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 15-6648
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vytlingum KANDASAWMI, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Vytlingum KANDASAWMI, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6648.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 20, 2015.
Decided: Aug. 25, 2015.
Vytlingum Kandasawmi, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Phillip Ben’Ary, Assistant United States Attorney, Grace Lee Hill, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are hot binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Vytlingum Kandasawmi 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 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 Kandasawmi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauper-is, 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.