Case Name: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Isaac SMALLS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-01
Citations: 608 F. App'x 162
Docket Number: No. 14-7212
Parties: UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Isaac SMALLS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 608
Pages: 162–163

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES Of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Isaac SMALLS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7212.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 10, 2015.
Decided July 1, 2015.
William Isaac Smalls, Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Isaac Smalls 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 constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Smalls 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.
This case has recently been returned to this court, after a limited remand to the district court to determine the timeliness of Smalls' notice of appeal. The district court determined that Smalls' notice of appeal was timely filed.