Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone DALE, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-03-31
Citations: 642 F. App'x 281
Docket Number: No. 15-7467
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone DALE, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 642
Pages: 281–281

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tyrone DALE, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7467.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 29, 2016.
Decided: March 31, 2016.
Tyrone Dale, Appellant Pro Se. Clinton Jacob Fuchs, Assistant United States Attorney, Rod J. Rosenstein, United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appel-lee.
Before GREGORY and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tyrone Dale seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as untimely. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate 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 Dale 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.