Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry L. JONES, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-09-03
Citations: 583 F. App'x 71
Docket Number: No. 14-6764
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry L. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 583
Pages: 71–72

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry L. JONES, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6764.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Aug. 28, 2014.
Decided: Sept. 3, 2014.
Larry L. Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Lee-sa Washington, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Larry L. Jones seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 certifícate 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 Jones 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 ádequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.