Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert MARSHALL, a/k/a Victor King, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-16
Citations: 711 F. App'x 728
Docket Number: No. 17-7159
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert MARSHALL, a/k/a Victor King, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 728–729

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Herbert MARSHALL, a/k/a Victor King, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7159
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 15, 2018
Decided: February 16, 2018
Herbert Marshall, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, FLOYD, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Herbert Marshall 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 constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Marshall has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Marshall's motion to appoint counsel, 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