Court Opinion

ID: 8599845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2022-11-23 21:06:22.411489+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:55:09.429247
License: Public Domain

PER CURIAM:
Clifton Anthony Grant seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his “Motion to Dismiss the Case for Lack of Jurisdiction” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing the 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) (2000). 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) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir.2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Grant has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certifi*682cate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED