Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Furman Benjamin QUATTLEBAUM, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-10-03
Citations: 698 F. App'x 108
Docket Number: No. 17-6824
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Furman Benjamin QUATTLEBAUM, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 698
Pages: 108–109

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Furman Benjamin QUATTLEBAUM, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-6824
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: September 28, 2017
Decided: October 3, 2017
Furman Benjamin Quattlebaum, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Acting United States Attorney, John C. Potterfield, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Leesa Washington, Assistant United States Attorneys, Green-ville, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
' Furman Benjamin Quattlebaum seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized 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) (2012). A certificate of ap-pealability will not issue absent "a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right." 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the district court deniés 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 Quattlebaum 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED