Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Turner SMITH, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-04-15
Citations: 599 F. App'x 495
Docket Number: No. 14-7505
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Turner SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 599
Pages: 495–496

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. William Turner SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-7505.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: March 24, 2015.
Decided: April 15, 2015.
William Turner Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Gordon James, Office of the United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
William Turner Smith 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 certifícate of ap-pealability. 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 Smith 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.