Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Keith KERR, II, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-01-26
Citations: 673 F. App'x 362
Docket Number: No. 16-6641
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Keith KERR, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 673
Pages: 362–363

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel Keith KERR, II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6641
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 9, 2017
Decided: January 26, 2017
Samuel Keith Kerr, II, Appellant Pro Se. Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorney, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, THACKER, Circuit Judge, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Keith Kerr, II, 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 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' Kerr has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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