UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6510

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SPENCER PETERS, a/k/a Smoke,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.
Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge.
(3:08-cr-00186-REP-RCY-2; 3:12-cv-00128-REPRCY)

Submitted:

August 27, 2015

Decided:

August 31, 2015

Before GREGORY, AGEE, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Spencer Peters, Appellant Pro Se.

Assistant United States Attorney,
Appellee.

Peter Sinclair Duffey,

Richmond, Virginia, for

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Spencer Peters seeks to appeal the district courts 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.
A

certificate

of

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).

appealability

will

not

issue

absent

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2012).
relief

on

the

demonstrating
district

merits,
that

courts

debatable

or

When the district court denies

prisoner

reasonable

assessment

wrong.

Slack

satisfies

jurists

this

would

of

the

v.

McDaniel,

standard

find

constitutional
529

by

that

the

claims

is

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

claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

debatable

Slack, 529 U.S.

at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Peters

has

not

made

our

brief.

See 4th Cir. R. 34(b).

not

disposition,

challenge
Peters

to

requisite

confine

does

review

the

the

the
has

issues

showing.
raised

On

in

the

appeal,

we

Appellants

Because Peters informal brief

basis
forfeited
2

for

the

district

appellate

review

courts
of

the

courts

order.

Accordingly,

we

appealability and dismiss the appeal.

deny

certificate

of

We 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