Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton Lee RUMLEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-12
Citations: 442 F. App'x 846
Docket Number: No. 11-6303
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton Lee RUMLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 846–847

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Clinton Lee RUMLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6303.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 26, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 12, 2011.
Clinton Lee Rumley, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Clinton Lee Rumley seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and denying reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Rumley has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Rumley's motion for a certificate of appeal-ability 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.