Case Name: Robert Lee WINFIELD, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-10-18
Citations: 450 F. App'x 291
Docket Number: No. 11-7008
Parties: Robert Lee WINFIELD, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 450
Pages: 291–292

Head Matter:
Robert Lee WINFIELD, Jr., Petitioner—Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 11-7008.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 13, 2011.
Decided: Oct. 18, 2011.
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his writ of error coram nobis 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 certificate 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 Winfield 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED.