UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7005
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
MARVIN HAROLD WITHERSPOON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:04-cr-00005-RLV-DCK-1; 5:10-cv-
00076-RLV)
Submitted: September 30, 2010 Decided: October 12, 2010
Before NIEMEYER, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Marvin Harold Witherspoon, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Marvin H. Witherspoon seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.
2010) 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) (2006); Reid v.
Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th Cir. 2004). 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)
(2006). 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
Witherspoon 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
2
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3