Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Maurice LINDER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-03
Citations: 414 F. App'x 524
Docket Number: No. 10-7725
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Maurice LINDER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 414
Pages: 524–525

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kevin Maurice LINDER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-7725.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 24, 2011.
Decided: March 3, 2011.
Kevin Maurice Linder, Appellant Pro Se.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kevin Maurice Linder seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion, and denying his motion for reconsideration. These orders are not appeal-able 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 Linder 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.