Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Howard ONEIL, Jr., a/k/a William Howard O'Neil, Jr., Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-12-15
Citations: 458 F. App'x 244
Docket Number: No. 11-6952
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Howard ONEIL, Jr., a/k/a William Howard O’Neil, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 458
Pages: 244–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Howard ONEIL, Jr., a/k/a William Howard O’Neil, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6952.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 1, 2011.
Decided: Dec. 15, 2011.
William Howard O’Neil, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Donald David Gast, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Howard O'Neil, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion. 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) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 O'Neil has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of ap-pealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.