Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Henry CHESTER, a/k/a Zeke, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-07-06
Citations: 386 F. App'x 398
Docket Number: No. 09-7942
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Henry CHESTER, a/k/a Zeke, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 386
Pages: 398–399

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Henry CHESTER, a/k/a Zeke, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 09-7942.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2010.
Decided: July 6, 2010.
Henry Chester, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and GREGORY, 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Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:
Henry "Zeke" Chester seeks to appeal the district court's order treating his motion filed under Fed.R.Crim.P. 36 as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) 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) (2006); see generally Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir.2004). 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 constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Chester 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.