Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Cadwell MCCLEES, II, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-06-01
Citations: 651 F. App'x 186
Docket Number: No. 16-6158
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Cadwell MCCLEES, II, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 651
Pages: 186–187

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Kenneth Cadwell MCCLEES, II, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-6158
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 26, 2016
Decided: June 1, 2016
Kenneth Cadwell McClees, II, Appellant Pro Se. Denise Walker, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before TRAXLER, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Kenneth Cadwell McClees, II, seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 sat isfies 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 McClees 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