Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Drako O. SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-03-28
Citations: 563 F. App'x 245
Docket Number: No. 13-7831
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Drako O. SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 563
Pages: 245–245

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Drako O. SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7831.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 25, 2014.
Decided: March 28, 2014.
Drako dandis Sullivan, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Burke Moorman, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Drako O. Sullivan seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his self-styled "Motion to Correct Criminal Judgment" as an unauthorized, successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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 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 Sullivan 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.
DISMISSED.