UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6196
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
IVAN ALEXANDER COPELAND, a/k/a Bert,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (2:13-cr-00091-RGD-DEM-1; 2:14-cv-00539-RGD)
Submitted: August 20, 2015 Decided: August 24, 2015
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Ivan Alexander Copeland, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin L. Hatch,
Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Ivan Alexander Copeland 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
Copeland has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny his motion for 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
2
before this Court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3