Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Mario BYERS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-01
Citations: 613 F. App'x 259
Docket Number: No. 15-6588
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Mario BYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 613
Pages: 259–260

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eric Mario BYERS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6588.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 27, 2015.
Decided Sept. 1, 2015.
Eric Mario Byers, Appellant Pro Se. William David Muhr, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eric Mario Byers 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 prison er 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 Byers has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny the motion for clarification, 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.