Case ID: f-appx_704/html/0292-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM:", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Rolando STOCKTON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Erick WILSON, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 17-7133
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: November 21, 2017
    Decided: November 28, 2017
    Rolando Stockton, Appellant Pro Se.
    Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
   Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Rolando Stockton, a federal inmate, seeks to appeal the district court’s order treating his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, concluding it lacked jurisdiction, and dismissing the petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (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, 120 S.Ct. 1595.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Stockton has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Stockton’s motion to place the case in abeyance, and dismiss the appeal. 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