Court Opinion

ID: 2682128
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2014-07-08 07:00:41.665761+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:41:49.542215
License: Public Domain

UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                             No. 14-6394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DWAYNE RODERICK ROSS,

                Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.     Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00714-CMC-1)

Submitted:   June 26, 2014                 Decided:    June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Roderick Ross, Appellant Pro Se. James Hunter May, John
C. Potterfield, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States
Attorneys, James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Dwayne Roderick Ross seeks to appeal from the district

court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it 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) (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 Ross 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

                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED

                                   3