Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rayshawn DONALDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-07
Citations: 700 F. App'x 299
Docket Number: No. 17-6808
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rayshawn DONALDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 299–300

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rayshawn DONALDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6808
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 19, 2017
Decided: November 7, 2017
Rayshawn Donaldson, Appellant Pro Se. JoAnna Gibson McFadden, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attor neys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rayshawn Donaldson seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 ap-pealability 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 Donaldson 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