Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee BATES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-26
Citations: 690 F. App'x 107
Docket Number: No. 17-6126
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee BATES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 690
Pages: 107–108

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Lee BATES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6126
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 23, 2017
Decided: May 26, 2017
Richard Lee Bates, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia; Jennifer R. Bockhorst, Assistant United States Attorney, Abingdon, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Lee Bates seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untime ly 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 Bates 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