Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Anthony MCKINNEY, 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 296
Docket Number: No. 17-6575
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Anthony MCKINNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 700
Pages: 296–297

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Anthony MCKINNEY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6575
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 27, 2017
Decided: November 7, 2017
David Anthony McKinney, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Anthony McKinney 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 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 McKinney has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion for appointment of counsel and 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