Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Gene WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-12-18
Citations: 624 F. App'x 138
Docket Number: No. 15-7507
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Gene WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 624
Pages: 138–139

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Douglas Gene WHITFIELD, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 15-7507.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 15, 2015.
Decided: Dec. 18, 2015.
Douglas G. Whitfield, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew Fesak, Assistant United States Attorney, Felice McConnell Corpening, Kimberly Ann Moore, Yvonne Victoria Watford-McKinney, Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Douglas Gene Whitfield 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 on that basis. 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 Whitfield 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.