Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Christopher HARVEY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-03
Citations: 670 F. App'x 136
Docket Number: No. 16-7226
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Christopher HARVEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 670
Pages: 136–137

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Steven Christopher HARVEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7226
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 14, 2016
Decided: November 3, 2016
Steven Christopher Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Dee Mullarkey Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia; Megan Cowles, Kristine Elizabeth Wolfe, Office of the United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Christopher Harvey seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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 Harvey 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED