Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Toby HAYES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-06
Citations: 473 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 12-6125
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Toby HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 205–206

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Christopher Toby HAYES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-6125.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 31, 2012.
Decided: June 6, 2012.
Christopher Toby Hayes, Appellant Pro Se. Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Toby Hayes seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and has made a motion for a certificate of appealability. The district court's order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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 Hayes has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate of appealability 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.