Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Lee LOVE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-11-28
Citations: 671 F. App'x 72
Docket Number: No. 16-7221
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Lee LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 671
Pages: 72–72

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jerry Lee LOVE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7221
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 22, 2016
Decided: November 28, 2016
Jerry Lee Love, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Lynn Dillon, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DIAZ and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerry Lee Love seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his .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 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 Love 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