Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad ALAZZAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-04
Citations: 558 F. App'x 310
Docket Number: No. 13-7414
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad ALAZZAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 558
Pages: 310–311

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Mohammad ALAZZAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7414.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 27, 2014.
Decided: March 4, 2014.
Mohammad Alazzam, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Katherine Barr Daly, Lawrence Joseph Leiser, Assistant United States Attorneys, Stephen Andrew Sola, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Mohammad Alazzam 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 certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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. § 2258(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 Alazzam 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.