Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donovan Anthony MONCRIEFFE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-06
Citations: 575 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 13-7706
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donovan Anthony MONCRIEFFE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donovan Anthony MONCRIEFFE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7706.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 30, 2014.
Decided: June 6, 2014.
Donovan Anthony Moncrieffe, Appellant Pro Se. Jay V. Prabhu, Assistant United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Donovan Anthony Moncrieffe seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 constitu tional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moncrieffe has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in informa 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.