Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-01
Citations: 651 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 16-6236
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 190–191

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6236
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2016
Decided: June 1, 2016
Larry Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. William A. Brafford, Assistant United States Attorney, Tiffany M. Mallory, Thomas A. O’Malley, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Whitfield 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 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 constitu tional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Whitfield 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