Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Sean WARNER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-15
Citations: 701 F. App'x 288
Docket Number: No. 17-6732
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Sean WARNER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 701
Pages: 288–288

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Arthur Sean WARNER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6732
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: October 26, 2017
Decided: November 15, 2017
Arthur Sean Warner, Appellant Pro Se. Zelda Elizabeth Wesley, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before AGEE and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Arthur Sean Warner seeks to appeal the district court's order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Warner's 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 mil 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 Warner 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