Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie Elbert FARMER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-07
Citations: 675 F. App'x 387
Docket Number: No. 16-7240
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie Elbert FARMER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 387–388

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charlie Elbert FARMER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7240
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 17, 2017
Decided: February 7, 2017
Charlie Elbert Farmer, Appellant Pro Se. Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WILKINSON and NIEMEYER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charlie Elbert Farmer 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 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 Farmer 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