Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Calvin Scott WEDINGTON, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-09-22
Citations: 109 F. App'x 593
Docket Number: No. 04-6853
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Calvin Scott WEDINGTON, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 109
Pages: 593–593

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Calvin Scott WEDINGTON, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 04-6853.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Sept. 16, 2004.
Decided Sept. 22, 2004.
Calvin Scott Wedington, Appellant pro se. Maury S. Epner, Miller, Miller & Canby, Rockville, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Calvin Scott Wedington seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion as successive. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue for claims addressed by a district court absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find both that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wedington has not made the requisite showing. To the extent that Wedington's informal brief and notice of appeal could be construed as a motion for authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion, we deny such authorization. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003). 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