Case Name: Samuel WESLEY-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.D. WHITEHEAD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-10-07
Citations: 332 F. App'x 930
Docket Number: No. 09-6781
Parties: Samuel WESLEY-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.D. WHITEHEAD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 332
Pages: 930–931

Head Matter:
Samuel WESLEY-EL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. J.D. WHITEHEAD, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 09-6781.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2009.
Decided: Oct. 7, 2009.
Samuel Wesley-El, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Wesley-El seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006), as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2009) motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (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). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any disposi-tive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cock-rell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 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, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Wesley-El 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.