Opinion
No. 14-7149
03-02-2015
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. KELLY EDWARD WADFORD, JR., Defendant - Appellant.
Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric John Klumb, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.
UNPUBLISHED Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:06-cr-01294-PMD-1; 2:14-cv-00369-PMD) Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Eric John Klumb, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Kelly Edward Wadford, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying 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 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wadford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis and 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