UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6680
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT GLENN FORD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen,
District Judge. (2:10-cr-00083-AWA-FBS-1; 2:13-cv-00534-AWA)
Submitted: November 30, 2016 Decided: December 14, 2016
Before WILKINSON and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
William Mallory Kent, LAW OFFICE OF WILLIAM MALLORY KENT,
Jacksonville, Florida, for Appellant. Melissa Elaine O’Boyle,
Alan Mark Salsbury, Assistant United States Attorneys, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Glenn Ford 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
Ford has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3