Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramone Haison ETHRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-21
Citations: 561 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 13-7737
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramone Haison ETHRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 561
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ramone Haison ETHRIDGE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7737.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 11, 2014.
Decided: March 21, 2014.
Ramone Haison Ethridge, Appellant Pro Se. S. Katherine Burnette, Shailika K. Shah, Office of the United States Attorney, Dennis Michael Duffy, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ramone Haison Ethridge 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 certifícate 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). 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 Ethridge has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ethridge'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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.