Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Martin F. SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-09
Citations: 474 F. App'x 373
Docket Number: No. 11-7640
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin F. SALAZAR, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 373–373

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Martin F. SALAZAR, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 11-7640.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 29, 2012.
Decided: July 9, 2012.
Martin F. Salazar, Appellant Pro Se. Dean A. Eichelberger, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
PER CURIAM:
Martin F. Salazar seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) 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) (2006). 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 Salazar has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Salazar'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.