UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7035
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
CHRISTOPHER CORNELIUS DANIELS,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:11-cr-00057-BR-1; 5:14-cv-00337-BR)
Submitted: October 16, 2014 Decided: October 22, 2014
Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part, dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Christopher Cornelius Daniels, Appellant Pro Se. Nathan A.
Huff, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Evan Rikhye, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Christopher Cornelius Daniels seeks to appeal the
district court’s order dismissing as successive and unauthorized
his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his alternate
requests for relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) and through a
writ of audita querela. Having reviewed the record, we affirm
the district court’s denial of § 2241 and audita querela relief.
See Daniels v. United States, Nos. 5:11-cr-00057-BR-1; 5:14-cv-
00337-BR (E.D.N.C. June 18, 2014).
That part of the district court’s order denying
Daniels’s motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion 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
2
claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 529 U.S.
at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and
conclude that Daniels has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability,
affirm in part, and dismiss in part. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
DISMISSED IN PART
3