Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wallace Thomas LESTER, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-12-23
Citations: 589 F. App'x 99
Docket Number: No. 14-7285
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wallace Thomas LESTER, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 589
Pages: 99–100

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Wallace Thomas LESTER, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7285.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 18, 2014.
Decided: Dec. 23, 2014.
Wallace Thomas Lester, Appellant Pro Se. Edward D. Gray, Assistant United States Attorney, Shailika S. Kotiya, Kelly Michele Perry, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wallace Thomas Lester seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized. The order is not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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 Lester 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.