Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel PEREZ, a/k/a Angel, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-12-24
Citations: 548 F. App'x 950
Docket Number: No. 13-7395
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel PEREZ, a/k/a Angel, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 548
Pages: 950–951

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Jose Angel PEREZ, a/k/a Angel, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-7395.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Dec. 19, 2013.
Decided: Dec. 24, 2013.
Jose Angel Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jose Angel Perez seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its order treating his previous Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2013) motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2258(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 Perez 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.