Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Leevann HOWARD, a/k/a Lee Howard, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-01-27
Citations: 552 F. App'x 276
Docket Number: No. 13-7374
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Leevann HOWARD, a/k/a Lee Howard, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 552
Pages: 276–276

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. James Leevann HOWARD, a/k/a Lee Howard, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7374.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 23, 2014.
Decided: Jan. 27, 2014.
James Leevann Howard, Appellant pro se. Stephen Aubrey West, Assistant United States Attorney, Eric David Goulian, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
James Leevann Howard 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 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 Howard 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.