Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory A. MILTON, a/k/a G, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-05
Citations: 449 F. App'x 243
Docket Number: No. 11-6729
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory A. MILTON, a/k/a G, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 449
Pages: 243–244

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Gregory A. MILTON, a/k/a G, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 11-6729.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Sept. 29, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 5, 2011.
Gregory A. Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his self-styled "Motion for Equitable Relief Based on the Unconstitutionality of the AEDPA Successive Habeas Provisions" as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2011) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). A certifícate 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 Milton 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.