UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7046
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a “P”,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB-1; 1:07-cv-00120-LMB)
Submitted: October 19, 2010 Decided: October 28, 2010
Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. Sarah E. Roque,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Preston Cornelius Everett seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his motion to reconsider the court’s
earlier order treating his “Motion to Dismiss Count One of
Superseding Indictment” as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2010). The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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 Everett 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