Court Opinion

ID: 9382156
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-24 21:01:29.472864+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:37.298661
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6876      Doc: 6        Filed: 03/23/2023     Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                              No. 22-6876

        UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                            Plaintiff - Appellee,

                     v.

        RONALD MILTIER,

                            Defendant - Appellant.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
        Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:15-cr-00151-AWA-DEM-1)

        Submitted: March 21, 2023                                         Decided: March 23, 2023

        Before WYNN and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and KEENAN, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Ronald Miltier, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6876         Doc: 6      Filed: 03/23/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Ronald Miltier seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “motion to

        vacate in accordance with 28 U.S.C. [§] 455 for judicial abuse and bias” as a 28 U.S.C.

        § 2255 motion and dismissing it as successive and unauthorized.            The order is not

        appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See

        28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B).      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,

        as here, 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S.

        134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miltier 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

                                                      2