Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert Franklin CAMPBELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-09-28
Citations: 697 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 17-6600
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert Franklin CAMPBELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 697
Pages: 261–261

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gilbert Franklin CAMPBELL, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6600
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 26, 2017
Decided: September 28, 2017
Gilbert Franklin Campbell, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gilbert Franklin Campbell, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and motion to reconsider the order denying his § 2255 motion. The orders are 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 Campbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Campbell's motions for a certificate of appealability and for transcripts at government expense, and we 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