Case Name: Ivey WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-10-05
Citations: 396 F. App'x 913
Docket Number: No. 10-6763
Parties: Ivey WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 396
Pages: 913–914

Head Matter:
Ivey WALKER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 10-6763.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 28, 2010.
Decided: Oct. 5, 2010.
Ivey Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ivey Walker seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Walker 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.