Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zonta Tavaras ELLISON, 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 692
Docket Number: No. 16-6666
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zonta Tavaras ELLISON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 669
Pages: 692–693

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Zonta Tavaras ELLISON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6666
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 18, 2016
Decided: October 20, 2016
Zonta Tavaras Ellison, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Cortney Randall, Assistant United States Attorneys, Elizabeth Margaret Greenough, Maria Kathleen Vento, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Zonta Tavaras Ellison 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 Ellison 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