Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Tyrone MURRELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-17
Citations: 701 F. App'x 296
Docket Number: No. 17-6717
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Tyrone MURRELL, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 701
Pages: 296–296

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Tyrone MURRELL, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6717
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 26, 2017
Decided: November 17, 2017
David Tyrone Murrell, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Thomas B. Murphy, Stephen Aubrey West, Seth Morgan Wood, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Tyrone Murrell 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 ap-pealability. 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 Murrell 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