Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ronald LOCKLEAR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-08-31
Citations: 656 F. App'x 28
Docket Number: No. 16-6039
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ronald LOCKLEAR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 656
Pages: 28–28

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Ronald LOCKLEAR, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6039
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: August 19, 2016
Decided: August 31, 2016
Charles Ronald Locklear, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, SHEDD, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Charles Ronald Locklear, Jr., 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 appealability. 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 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 Locklear 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