Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zeb Anthony HENSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-26
Citations: 690 F. App'x 116
Docket Number: No. 17-6095
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zeb Anthony HENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 116–117

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zeb Anthony HENSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6095
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Zeb Anthony Henson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Zeb Anthony Henson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 demon- strafing 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 Henson 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