Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dickinson Norman ADIONSER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-03-17
Citations: 417 F. App'x 305
Docket Number: No. 10-6928
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dickinson Norman ADIONSER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 417
Pages: 305–306

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dickinson Norman ADIONSER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 10-6928.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 15, 2011.
Decided: March 17, 2011.
Dickinson Norman Adionser, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, Laura Pellatiro Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dickinson Norman Adionser seeks to appeal the district court's order denying Adionser permission to file a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) motion. The order is not appealable 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). 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 MillerEl 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 Adionser has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, 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.