Court Opinion

ID: 4233190
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2017-12-28 20:00:26.193421+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:00.460999
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

COREY E. WHITE,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief District Judge. (2:07-cr-00150-RBS-FBS-1; 2:17-
cv-00510-RBS)

Submitted: December 21, 2017                                Decided: December 28, 2017

Before WILKINSON and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Corey E. White, Appellant Pro Se. Delnisea Monique Broadnax, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

       Corey E. White seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable 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) (2012). 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 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336-38 (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.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that White 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

       ∗
          Although the district court should have dismissed the motion for lack of
jurisdiction because it was an unauthorized successive motion, the order is nonetheless
not appealable because White cannot establish entitlement to a certificate of
appealability.

                                             2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                         DISMISSED

                                          3