Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antowan THORNE, a/k/a Smooth, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-20
Citations: 706 F. App'x 143
Docket Number: No. 17-6748
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antowan THORNE, a/k/a Smooth, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 706
Pages: 143–144

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antowan THORNE, a/k/a Smooth, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6748
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2017
Decided: December 20, 2017
Antowan Thorne, Appellant Pro Se. Marc Birnbaum, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this'circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antowan Thorne 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 sat isfies 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 Thorne 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