Case Name: UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anirudh Lakhan SUKHU, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-09-21
Citations: 616 F. App'x 92
Docket Number: No. 15-6563
Parties: UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anirudh Lakhan SUKHU, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 616
Pages: 92–93

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Anirudh Lakhan SUKHU, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-6563.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 28, 2015.
Decided: Sept. 21, 2015.
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson, Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser, Office of the United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion without prejudice as successive. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate 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 Sukhu 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.