Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny William COOPER, Jr., a/k/a Buck, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-03-01
Citations: 513 F. App'x 261
Docket Number: No. 12-8026
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny William COOPER, Jr., a/k/a Buck, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 513
Pages: 261–262

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Johnny William COOPER, Jr., a/k/a Buck, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 12-8026.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Feb. 26, 2013.
Decided: March 1, 2013.
Johnny William Cooper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C. Moore, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Johnny William Cooper, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order construing his motion to amend his previously filed 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion as a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of ap-pealability. 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 Cooper 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.