Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin WEATHERLY, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-29
Citations: 635 F. App'x 134
Docket Number: No. 15-7746
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin WEATHERLY, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 635
Pages: 134–134

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Benjamin WEATHERLY, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7746.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 22, 2016.
Decided: March 29, 2016.
Benjamin Weatherly, Appellant Pro Se. Kyle William Maurer, Office of the United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Benjamin Weatherly 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 appeal-ability. 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 Weatherly has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Weatherly's motion to appoint counsel, deny a certificate of ap-pealability, 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.