Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Orbie JAMES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-02-25
Citations: 633 F. App'x 175
Docket Number: No. 15-7534
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Orbie JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 633
Pages: 175–175

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Keith Orbie JAMES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7534.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 19, 2016.
Decided: Feb. 25, 2016.
Keith Orbie James, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ramas-wamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Kyle David Pousson, Office of the United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Keith Orbie James seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 James 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.