Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Roderick ROSS, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-30
Citations: 577 F. App'x 151
Docket Number: No. 14-6394
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Roderick ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 577
Pages: 151–152

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dwayne Roderick ROSS, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6394.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 26, 2014.
Decided: June 30, 2014.
Dwayne Roderick Ross, Appellant Pro Se. James Hunter May, John C. Potter-field, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, James Chris Le-ventis, Jr., Office of the United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Ap-pellee.
Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Roderick Ross seeks to appeal from the district court's order construing his Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive. 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 Ross 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.