Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Donnell BANKS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-29
Citations: 583 F. App'x 274
Docket Number: No. 14-6587
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Donnell BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 274–275

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jermaine Donnell BANKS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6587.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 25, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 29, 2014.
Jermaine Donnell Banks, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Steven Loew, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia; Miller A. Bushong, III, Office of the United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jermaine Donnell Banks seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion for reconsideration of 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 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 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 Banks 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.