UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-8390
FELIX ORIAKHI,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:08-cv-00893-PJM; 1:90-cr-00072-PJM-12)
Submitted: April 16, 2009 Decided: April 24, 2009
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Felix Oriakhi, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Felix Oriakhi seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his “Petition for Writ of Audita Querela” as a
motion pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000), and denying it for
failure to first obtain authorization from this court to file a
successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(2006). He also seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. The orders are 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 any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district
court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural
ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El
v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529
U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th
Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Oriakhi has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny
Oriakhi’s motion to consolidate, and dismiss the appeal. We
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3