Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Keith BATTLE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-05-28
Citations: 573 F. App'x 249
Docket Number: No. 13-7801
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Keith BATTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 573
Pages: 249–250

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Keith BATTLE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7801.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 22, 2014.
Decided: May 28, 2014.
Antonio Keith Battle, Appellant Pro Se. Sherrie Scott Capotosto, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and HAMILTON and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Keith Battle seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and his subsequent motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Battle 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.