Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antonio Maurice CRAIG, a/k/a Cup, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-05-22
Citations: 473 F. App'x 257
Docket Number: No. 11-7571
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio Maurice CRAIG, a/k/a Cup, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 473
Pages: 257–257

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Antonio Maurice CRAIG, a/k/a Cup, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-7571.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2012.
Decided: May 22, 2012.
Antonio Maurice Craig, Appellant Pro Se. Keith Michael Caye, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, GREGORY, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Antonio Maurice Craig seeks to appeal the district court's orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion and denying his motion for reconsideration. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (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 Craig 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.