Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Maurice PARIS, a/k/a Black, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-04-03
Citations: 683 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 16-7043
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Maurice PARIS, a/k/a Black, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 683
Pages: 235–236

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Maurice PARIS, a/k/a Black, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7043
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 30, 2017
Decided: April 3, 2017
Robert Maurice Paris, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Maurice Paris seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Paris has not made the requisite showing in light of the Supreme Court's recent decision in Beckles v. United States, — U.S. —, 137 S.Ct. 886, 197 L.Ed.2d 145 (2017). Accordingly, although we grant Paris' motion to file a supplemental informal brief, 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