Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kent Douglas EASTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-05-07
Citations: 601 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 14-7602
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kent Douglas EASTON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 601
Pages: 236–236

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kent Douglas EASTON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7602.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 28, 2015.
Decided: May 7, 2015.
Randolph Marshall Lee, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellant. William A. Bradford, Kimlani M. Ford, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KEENAN, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kent Douglas Easton seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely 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 certifícate 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 Easton 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.