Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert Lee WINFIELD, Jr., a/k/a Tubbs, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-26
Citations: 474 F. App'x 417
Docket Number: No. 12-6973
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lee WINFIELD, Jr., a/k/a Tubbs, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 417–418

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Robert Lee WINFIELD, Jr., a/k/a Tubbs, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 12-6973.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2012.
Decided: July 26, 2012.
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his "MOTION UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1651 AND/OR FEDERAL RULES OF CIVL [sic] PROCEDURE, RULE 60(b) AND/OR NUNC PRO TUNC" pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) and dismissing it as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Winfield 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.