Case Name: Marvin EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, FCI-Medium Petersburg, RespondentAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-07-31
Citations: 581 F. App'x 163
Docket Number: No. 14-6233
Parties: Marvin EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, FCI-Medium Petersburg, RespondentAppellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 581
Pages: 163–164

Head Matter:
Marvin EDWARDS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric WILSON, Warden, FCI-Medium Petersburg, RespondentAppellee.
No. 14-6233.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2014.
Decided: July 31, 2014.
Marvin Edwards, Appellant Pro Se. Joel Eric Wilson, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Marvin Edwards, a District of Columbia Code offender, seeks to appeal the district court's orders accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Edwards' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition, and denying reconsideration of that order. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (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 petition 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 Edwards has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.