UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7931
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WENDELL EDWARD BETANCOURT, a/k/a Shawn Nelson, a/k/a Fire,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (3:01-cr-00025-JPB-JES-5; 3:12-cv-00083-
JPB-JES)
Submitted: April 9, 2014 Decided: April 16, 2014
Before MOTZ, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wendell Edward Betancourt, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas
Camilletti, Assistant United States Attorney, Martinsburg, West
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wendell Edward Betancourt seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
relief from the district court’s order denying and dismissing
his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Betancourt 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
2
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3