Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel WESLEY, Jr., a/k/a Rick, a/k/a Samuel Wesley-El, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-02-01
Citations: 710 F. App'x 145
Docket Number: No. 17-7010
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel WESLEY, Jr., a/k/a Rick, a/k/a Samuel Wesley-El, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 710
Pages: 145–146

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Samuel WESLEY, Jr., a/k/a Rick, a/k/a Samuel Wesley-El, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 17-7010
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 30, 2018
Decided: February 1, 2018
Samuel Wesley, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. John Francis Purcell, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Wesley, Jr., 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 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 reviewed the record and Wesley's informal brief and conclude that Wesley has failed to challenge on appeal the district court's dispositive procedural ruling. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). 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