UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7019
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
LOUIS ANTONIO BRYANT, a/k/a Tinio, a/k/a Black, a/k/a B
Stacks,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon,
Senior District Judge. (3:04-cr-00047-NKM-RSB-1; 3:14-cv-80748-
NKM-RSB)
Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Louis Antonio Bryant, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Louis Antonio Bryant seeks to appeal the district
court’s order treating his motion to be resentenced as a
successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on
that basis. 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 Bryant 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
2
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3