Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Rodricka Jermaine GAMBRELL, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-06-25
Citations: 474 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 12-6335
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodricka Jermaine GAMBRELL, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Rodricka Jermaine GAMBRELL, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 12-6335.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 21, 2012.
Decided: June 25, 2012.
Rodricka Jermaine Gambrell, Appellant Pro Se. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Rodricka Jermaine Gambrell seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion for judicial notice as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 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 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 constitu tional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Gambrell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.