Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold Russell THREET, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-07-25
Citations: 693 F. App'x 248
Docket Number: No. 17-6328
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold Russell THREET, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 693
Pages: 248–249

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arnold Russell THREET, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6328
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 20, 2017
Decided: July 25, 2017
Arnold Russell Threet, Appellant Pro Se. Bonnie S. Greenberg, James Thomas Wallner, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arnold Russell Threet 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. § 2258(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 thai 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 Threet 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