Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brooks Thomas Lackey BROWN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-08-09
Citations: 537 F. App'x 272
Docket Number: No. 13-6338
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brooks Thomas Lackey BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 537
Pages: 272–273

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Brooks Thomas Lackey BROWN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6338.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 29, 2013.
Decided: Aug. 9, 2013.
Clifford James Barnard, Clifford J. Barnard, Attorney at Law, Boulder, Colorado, for Appellant. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Jill Westmoreland Rose, Office of the United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina; Kevin Zolot, Office of the United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Brooks Thomas Lackey Brown seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion. The order is not ap pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Brown 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.