UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 11-6730
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER K. MULLINS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern
District of West Virginia, at Charleston. John T. Copenhaver,
Jr., District Judge. (2:09-cv-00177; 2:04-cr-00011-JTC-1)
Submitted: October 13, 2011 Decided: October 17, 2011
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas J. Gillooly, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellant.
Steven Loew, Charles T. Miller, Monica Kaminski Schwartz,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Charleston, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher K. Mullins seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2011) 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) (2006). 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) (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 (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 Mullins has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss
the appeal. We also deny Mullins’s pending motion for
appointment of counsel. We dispense with oral argument because
the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
2
materials before the court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3