UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6015

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

RICHARD ALLEN SMITH, JR., a/k/a Smitty,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., 

Senior District Judge. (2:00-cr-00007-FPS-JES-1)

Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 21, 2015

Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam 

opinion.

Richard Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas 

Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West 

Virginia; Robert Hugh McWilliams, Jr., John Castle Parr,

Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia;

Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, 

West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Richard Allen Smith, Jr., appeals the district court’s 

order denying his motions for a mandatory evidentiary hearing, 

to strike the Government’s consolidated response to his motions, 

for a release order, and for a certificate of release, and 

construing his motions for summary judgment and to review his 

sentence as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motions and 

dismissing them as unauthorized. We confine our review to the 

issues raised in the Appellant’s brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 

Smith does not challenge in his informal brief the basis for the 

district court’s denial of his motions for a mandatory 

evidentiary hearing, to strike the Government’s consolidated 

response to his motions, for a release order, and for a 

certificate of release. Thus, he has forfeited appellate review 

of the court’s disposition of those motions, and we affirm that 

portion of the court’s order. 

To the extent that Smith seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order construing his motions for review of sentence and 

for summary judgment as successive and unauthorized § 2255 

motions, 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 
3

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 

Smith 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.

AFFIRMED IN PART; 

DISMISSED IN PART