Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Bernard WALKER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-03-09
Citations: 678 F. App'x 184
Docket Number: No. 16-7076
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Bernard WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON,. AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 678
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Ronald Bernard WALKER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7076
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 28, 2017
Decided: March 9, 2017
Ronald Bernard Walker, Appellant Pro Se.
Elizabeth Freeman Greene, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON,. AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ronald Bernard Walker 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 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 Walker has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Walker's motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny as moot Walker's motion to expedite decision. 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