Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Wayne AIKEN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-05-11
Citations: 689 F. App'x 185
Docket Number: No. 16-7192
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Wayne AIKEN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 689
Pages: 185–186

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry Wayne AIKEN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7192
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2017
Decided: May 11, 2017
Larry Wayne Aiken, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry Wayne Aiken 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 certifícate 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 sat isfies 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 Aiken has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Aiken's motion for 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