Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Keith ROSS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-05-12
Citations: 428 F. App'x 237
Docket Number: No. 10-7463
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Keith ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 428
Pages: 237–237

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Keith ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-7463.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 29, 2011.
Decided: May 12, 2011.
Robert Keith Ross, Appellant Pro Se. Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KEENAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Keith Ross seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (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 Ross has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Ross's motion for 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.