Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Dean CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-01-10
Citations: 708 F. App'x 126
Docket Number: No. 17-7018
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Dean CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior ■ Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 708
Pages: 126–127

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Dean CHAPMAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7018.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: January 10, 2018
William Dean Chapman, Appellant Pro Se. Alison M. Zitron, Special Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior ■ Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Dean Chapman 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 Chapman 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