Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-11-25
Citations: 585 F. App'x 271
Docket Number: No. 14-6971
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 585
Pages: 271–271

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Bernard CELESTINE, a/k/a Speed, a/k/a Beaver, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 14-6971.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Nov. 20, 2014.
Decided: Nov. 25, 2014.
Bernard Celestine, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bernard Celestine seeks to appeal the district court's orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized, and denying his subsequently filed motion for a certificate of appealability. These orders are not ap-pealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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).
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 Celestine 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.