Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Doyle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-06
Citations: 692 F. App'x 712
Docket Number: No. 17-6106
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Doyle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 692
Pages: 712–713

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Richard Doyle HUDSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6106
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 15, 2017
Decided: July 6, 2017
Richard Doyle Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Doyle Hudson 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 Hudson has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Hudson's motion for leave to supplement his informal brief. 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