Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isiah LAND, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-14
Citations: 528 F. App'x 371
Docket Number: No. 13-6701
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isiah LAND, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 528
Pages: 371–372

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Isiah LAND, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6701.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 5, 2013.
Decided: June 14, 2013.
Isiah Land, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, Office of the United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Ap-pellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isiah Land seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his motion for a writ of error coram nobis as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. 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. § 2258(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 constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Land has not made the requisite showing. See United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir.2003). 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.