Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sammy CHAVIS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2012-07-26
Citations: 474 F. App'x 416
Docket Number: No. 12-6975
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sammy CHAVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
Judges: Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 474
Pages: 416–417

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Sammy CHAVIS, Defendant—Appellant.
No. 12-6975.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 19, 2012.
Decided: July 26, 2012.
Sammy Chavis, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sammy Chavis seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his "Motion to Do Justice" pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) and dismissing it as successive. 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 ap-pealability 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 Chavis has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifícate 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.