Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muhammad Abdul RAHMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-02
Citations: 574 F. App'x 251
Docket Number: No. 13-7398
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muhammad Abdul RAHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 574
Pages: 251–252

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Muhammad Abdul RAHMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7398.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 29, 2014.
Decided: June 2, 2014.
Muhammad Abdul Rahman, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Ethan A. Ontjes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Muhammad Abdul Rahman seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The orders are 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 ap-pealability 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 Rahman 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.