Case Name: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert HILL, a/k/a Benny, Defendant-Appellant
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-17
Citations: 528 F. App'x 378
Docket Number: No. 13-6221
Parties: UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert HILL, a/k/a Benny, Defendant-Appellant.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 528
Pages: 378–378

Head Matter:
UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Robert HILL, a/k/a Benny, Defendant-Appellant.
No. 13-6221.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 13, 2013.
Decided: June 17, 2013.
Robert Hill, Appellant pro se. David Thomas Maguire, Stephen Wiley Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Hill seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2012) motion as successive. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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 Hill 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.