UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-7063

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff – Appellee, 

v. 

HOWARD SCOTT, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior

District Judge. (2:09-cr-00991-PMD-1) 

Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014

Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Howard Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for 

Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2

PER CURIAM: 

Howard Scott seeks to appeal from the district court’s 

orders denying his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his motion for a certificate of appealability.* The 

orders from which Scott seeks to appeal are 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). 

When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner 

 * Scott filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the 

district court denied relief. Scott appealed, and, in January 

2013, this court denied a certificate of appealability and 

dismissed Scott’s appeal. United States v. Scott, 506 F. App’x 

215, 216 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12–7971). Scott subsequently 

filed a self-styled motion to modify his sentence for alleged 

constitutional violations. Because this self-styled motion 

attacks the validity of Scott’s sentence, it amounts to a 

successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock, 

340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). Scott did not appeal the 

district court’s order denying this motion, but, rather, filed a 

motion for a certificate of appealability that sought review of 

the order denying the motion to modify. Scott has noted a 

timely appeal from the district court’s order denying the motion 

for a certificate of appealability. We also treat the motion 

for a certificate of appealability as a notice of appeal from 

the district court’s denial of Scott’s successive § 2255 motion 

because it was filed within the time limit allotted for filing a 

timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i); 

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) 

(documents filed by parties proceeding pro se are to be 

construed liberally); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992) 

(stating that “the notice afforded by a 

document . . . determines the document’s sufficiency as a notice 

of appeal”). 
3

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 Scott 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 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

DISMISSED