Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lavell SKIPWITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-10-20
Citations: 669 F. App'x 685
Docket Number: No. 16-6385
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lavell SKIPWITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 685–685

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Lavell SKIPWITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6385
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 18, 2016
Decided: October 20, 2016
Eric Lavell Skipwith, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Christopher John Romano, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Lavell Skipwith 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 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 Skipwith 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