UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6417
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILKINS MCNAIR, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 14-6426
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILKINS MCNAIR, JR.,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the District
of Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, District Judge.
(1:06-cr-00281-CCB-1; 1:11-cv-01902-CCB; 1:09-cr-00320-CCB-1;
1:12-cv-03546-CCB)
Submitted: July 30, 2014 Decided: August 20, 2014
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wilkins McNair, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jefferson McClure Gray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In these consolidated appeals, Wilkins McNair, Jr.
seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions. The orders are 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 McNair has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability in No. 14-6417, deny
McNair’s motion for a certificate of appealability in No. 14-
6426, and dismiss the appeals. We dispense with oral argument
3
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before this court and argument would not aid
the decisional process.
DISMISSED
4