Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-12-14
Citations: 671 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 16-6680
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 147–148

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Glenn FORD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6680
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 30, 2016
Decided: December 14, 2016
William Mallory Kent, Law Office of William Mallory Kent, Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. .
PER CURIAM:
Robert Glenn Ford seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.U § 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 Ford 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