Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Steven VANLAAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-22
Citations: 672 F. App'x 269
Docket Number: No. 16-7193
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Steven VANLAAR, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 672
Pages: 269–270

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jack Steven VANLAAR, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7193
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 20, 2016
Decided: December 22, 2016
Jack Steven Vanlaar, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Anand P. Ramas-wamy, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jack Steven Vanlaar 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 Vanlaar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We grant Vanlaar's motion to correct his informal brief. 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