Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deshea Robin FAULK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-20
Citations: 451 F. App'x 267
Docket Number: No. 11-6495
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deshea Robin FAULK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 451
Pages: 267–268

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Deshea Robin FAULK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6495.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 18, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 20, 2011.
Deshea Robin Faulk, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Deshea Robin Faulk seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appeal-ability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Faulk has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny Faulk's motions for a transcript and for discovery at government expense and we dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.