Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lloyd BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-03
Citations: 688 F. App'x 192
Docket Number: No. 16-7609
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lloyd BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 688
Pages: 192–193

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Walter Lloyd BLAIR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7609
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 27, 2017
Decided: May 3, 2017
Walter Lloyd Blair, Appellant Pro Se. James Andrew Crowell, IV, Christian Jacques Nauvel, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Walter Lloyd Blair 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 appealability. 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 Blair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Blair's motion to file an oversized brief, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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