Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lenny CAIN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-14
Citations: 711 F. App'x 164
Docket Number: No. 17-7213
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lenny CAIN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 711
Pages: 164–164

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Lenny CAIN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7213
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 30, 2018
Decided: February 14, 2018
Lenny Lyle Cain, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States Attorney, Kenneth Sutherland Clark, Mushtaq Zakir Gunja, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Lenny Cain 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 certifícate 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 Cain 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