Case Name: Felix ORIAKHI, Petitioner - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent - Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-04-24
Citations: 323 F. App'x 233
Docket Number: No. 08-8390
Parties: Felix ORIAKHI, Petitioner — Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent — Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 323
Pages: 233–233

Head Matter:
Felix ORIAKHI, Petitioner — Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Respondent — Appellee.
No. 08-8390.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 16, 2009.
Decided: April 24, 2009.
Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felix Oriakhi seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his "Petition for Writ of Audita Querela" as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying it for failure to first obtain authorization from this court to file a successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2), 2255 (2006). He also seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Oriakhi has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Oriakhi's motion to consolidate, 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.