Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moorthy Srinivasan RAM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-07-28
Citations: 610 F. App'x 324
Docket Number: No. 15-6859
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moorthy Srinivasan RAM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 610
Pages: 324–325

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Moorthy Srinivasan RAM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6859.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 23, 2015.
Decided: July 28, 2015.
Moorthy Srinivasan Ram, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Ronald Gill, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Moorthy Srinivasan Ram 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 ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 Ram has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Ram's motion to appoint counsel, 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.