Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony ALSTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-03
Citations: 441 F. App'x 987
Docket Number: No. 11-6024
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony ALSTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 441
Pages: 987–988

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anthony ALSTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6024.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 27, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 3, 2011.
Anthony Alston, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anthony Alston seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) 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) (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 Alston has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny the motion to remand for resentencing and 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.