Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Louis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-22
Citations: 707 F. App'x 147
Docket Number: No. 17-7165
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Louis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 147–147

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brian Louis CLARK, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7165
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: December 22, 2017
Brian Louis Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Ellen Elisabeth Cobb, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Brian Louis Clark seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his amended 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely filed. The order is not appeal-able unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability 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 Clark has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Clark'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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED