Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quadrick Montrell EVERETTE, a/k/a Quat, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-02-18
Citations: 591 F. App'x 236
Docket Number: No. 14-7415
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quadrick Montrell EVERETTE, a/k/a Quat, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 591
Pages: 236–237

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Quadrick Montrell EVERETTE, a/k/a Quat, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7415.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 12, 2015.
Decided: Feb. 18, 2015.
Quadrick Montrell Everette, Appellant Pro Se. William Glenn Perry, Office of the United States Attorney, Greenville, North Carolina; Seth Morgan Wood, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Quadrick Montrell Everette seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion 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 ap-pealability 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 thé 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. 478, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 587 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 Everette 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.