Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Lee LOCKAMY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-11
Citations: 697 F. App'x 190
Docket Number: No. 17-6212
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Lee LOCKAMY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 190–190

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Roger Lee LOCKAMY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6212
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 29, 2017
Decided: September 11, 2017
Roger Lee Lockamy, Appellant Pro Se. Graham Tod' Green, Assistant United States Attorney, Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Roger Lee Lockamy 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 constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lockamy has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate 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