Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Charles JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-12-22
Citations: 707 F. App'x 156
Docket Number: No. 17-7085
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Charles JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 707
Pages: 156–157

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Andrew Charles JACKSON, a/k/a William Benbow, a/k/a Ricky Antonio Bady, a/k/a Sway, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7085
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: December 19, 2017
Decided: December 22, 2017
Andrew Charles Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Andrew Charles Jackson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certifícate of ap-pealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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) (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 Jackson 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