Court Opinion

ID: 4238569
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2018-01-23 20:00:27.244798+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:48:03.618564
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                      No. 17-7170

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

RONNIE GERALD BELT,

                    Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia,
at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:13-cr-00030-JPB-JES-1; 2:17-cv-
00084-JPB-JES)

Submitted: January 18, 2018                                       Decided: January 23, 2018

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and SHEDD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ronnie Gerald Belt, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald Warner, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Elkins, West Virginia, for
Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ronnie Gerald Belt seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized.              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 Belt 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