Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis RICH, a/k/a O, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-08-01
Citations: 475 F. App'x 17
Docket Number: No. 12-6471
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis RICH, a/k/a O, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 475
Pages: 17–18

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Otis RICH, a/k/a O, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-6471.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2012.
Decided: Aug. 1, 2012.
Otis Rich, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Michael Clayton Hanlon, George Jarrod Hazel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Mushtaq Zakir Gunja, Antonio J. Reynolds, Jason M. Weinstein, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Otis Rich seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.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) (2006). 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) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the distinct 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 Rich has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rich's motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.