Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antone Henry POINDEXTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2016-04-21
Citations: 645 F. App'x 283
Docket Number: No. 15-7732
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antone Henry POINDEXTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 645
Pages: 283–284

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Antone Henry POINDEXTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7732.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 19, 2016.
Decided: April 21, 2016.
Antone Henry Poindexter, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller, Stephen David Schiller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Antone Henry Poindexter seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and denying his motion to reconsider. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certifícate 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 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 Poindexter 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.