Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Steven HORN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-06-27
Citations: 692 F. App'x 169
Docket Number: No. 17-6476
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Steven HORN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 169–170

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory Steven HORN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6476
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 22, 2017
Decided: June 27, 2017
Gregory Steven Horn, Appellant Pro Se. Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory Steven Horn seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court's order denying 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. § 2263(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 Horn 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