Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin FONVILLE, a/k/a Cal, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-07-30
Citations: 536 F. App'x 327
Docket Number: No. 13-6874
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin FONVILLE, a/k/a Cal, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 536
Pages: 327–328

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin FONVILLE, a/k/a Cal, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6874.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 25, 2013.
Decided: July 30, 2013.
Calvin Fonville, Appellant pro se. Kevin Michael Comstock, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, DAVIS, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Fonville seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) 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) (2006). 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) (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, 386-38, 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 Fonville has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Fonville'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.