Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Shelby SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-11-28
Citations: 704 F. App'x 287
Docket Number: No. 17-7065
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Shelby SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 704
Pages: 287–288

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wayne Shelby SIMMONS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7065
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: November 21, 2017
Decided: November 28, 2017
Wayne Shelby Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Karen Ledbetter Taylor, James L. Trump, Assistant United States Attorneys, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Shelby Simmons seeks to appeal the district court's order denyiñg 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 ap-pealability. 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 Simmons 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