Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dushawn Levert GARDNER, a/k/a Michael Archer, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Shawn, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2017-02-03
Citations: 675 F. App'x 352
Docket Number: No. 16-7255
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dushawn Levert GARDNER, a/k/a Michael Archer, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Shawn, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 675
Pages: 352–353

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Dushawn Levert GARDNER, a/k/a Michael Archer, a/k/a Black, a/k/a Shawn, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 16-7255
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: January 31, 2017
Decided: February 3, 2017
Dushawn Levert Gardner, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee,
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Dushawn Levert Gardner seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing as successive on 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 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 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 Gardner 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