Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Davon SCOTT, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-11
Citations: 438 F. App'x 228
Docket Number: No. 10-7365
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sean Davon SCOTT, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 438
Pages: 228–229

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sean Davon SCOTT, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 10-7365.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2011.
Decided: July 11, 2011.
Sean Davon Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Charles Kay, Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sean Davon Scott seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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). 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 MillerEl 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 Scott has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Scott's motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.