Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelly Edward WADFORD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-03-28
Citations: 470 F. App'x 193
Docket Number: No. 11-7326
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelly Edward WADFORD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 470
Pages: 193–194

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kelly Edward WADFORD, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7326.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 20, 2012.
Decided: March 28, 2012.
Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric John Klumb, Nathan S. Williams, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Wadford 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.