Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Kenneth BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-09-14
Citations: 478 F. App'x 34
Docket Number: No. 12-7147
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Kenneth BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 478
Pages: 34–35

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Eugene Kenneth BRINSON, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-7147.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 11, 2012.
Decided: Sept. 14, 2012.
Eugene Kenneth Brinson, Appellant Pro Se. Roderick Charles Young, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, VA, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Eugene Kenneth Brinson seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion to reopen as a successive 28 U.S.CA. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2258(e)(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 Brinson 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.