Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tibel CLARK, a/k/a Felix Johnson, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-25
Citations: 530 F. App'x 266
Docket Number: No. 13-6209
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tibel CLARK, a/k/a Felix Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 266–267

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Tibel CLARK, a/k/a Felix Johnson, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6209.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 20, 2013.
Decided: June 25, 2013.
Tibel Clark, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, DUNCAN, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Tibel Clark seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion for reconsideration as a motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012), and denying 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) (2006). 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) (2006). 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 Clark 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.