UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-7588
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ROBERT MOSES WILKERSON,
Defendant – Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00167-H-1)
Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011
Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Moses Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Moses Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his self-styled motion for writ of audit
querela. Because Wilkerson’s motion was a successive and
unauthorized 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2010) motion, see
28 U.S.C. § 2255(h); In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 (4th Cir.
1997), the district court was obligated to dismiss the motion,
see United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 205 (4th Cir.
2003), and 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.
2
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Wilkerson 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
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3