Case Name: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth T. CUCCINELLI, II, Attorney General of the State of Virginia; Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-04-29
Citations: 569 F. App'x 155
Docket Number: No. 14-6238
Parties: Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth T. CUCCINELLI, II, Attorney General of the State of Virginia; Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 569
Pages: 155–156

Head Matter:
Jeffrey A. PLEASANT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Kenneth T. CUCCINELLI, II, Attorney General of the State of Virginia; Harold W. Clarke, Director, Virginia Dept. of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 14-6238.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: April 24, 2014.
Decided: April 29, 2014.
Jeffrey A. Pleasant, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Jeffrey A. Pleasant seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. 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 Pleasant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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.