Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George SELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-29
Citations: 573 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 14-6184
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George SELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. George SELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6184.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2014.
Decided: May 29, 2014.
George Sell, Appellant Pro Se. Stacy Dawson Belf, Assistant United States Attorney, LisaMarie Freitas, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
George Sell 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 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 Sell 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.