Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Lamont DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-28
Citations: 707 F. App'x 211
Docket Number: No. 17-7192
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Lamont DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 211–212

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Sean Lamont DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7192
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 21, 2017
Decided: December 28, 2017
Sean Lamont Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Ashe-ville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Lamont Dudley seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing Dud ley's motion to vacate his criminal judgment as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 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 Dudley 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