Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-09-07
Citations: 668 F. App'x 494
Docket Number: No. 16-6180
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 668
Pages: 494–495

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Thomas Creighton SHRADER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6180
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 31, 2016
Decided: September 7, 2016
Thomas Creighton Shrader, Appellant Pro Se. John Lanier File, Assistant United States Attorney, Beckley, West Virginia; Betty Adkins Pullin, Thomas C. Ryan, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Creighton Shrader 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 Shrader 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
Because the issue was not clearly raised by Shrader or fully addressed by the district court, we express no opinion as to whether Shrader may be entitled to relief under Johnson v. United States, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2551, 192 L.Ed.2d 569 (2015).