UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7063
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
HOWARD SCOTT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:09-cr-00991-PMD-1)
Submitted: October 21, 2014 Decided: October 24, 2014
Before SHEDD, DUNCAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Howard Scott, Appellant Pro Se. Matthew J. Modica, Assistant
United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Howard Scott seeks to appeal from the district court’s
orders denying his successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
denying his motion for a certificate of appealability. * The
orders from which Scott seeks to appeal are 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).
When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner
*
Scott filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the
district court denied relief. Scott appealed, and, in January
2013, this court denied a certificate of appealability and
dismissed Scott’s appeal. United States v. Scott, 506 F. App’x
215, 216 (4th Cir. 2013) (No. 12–7971). Scott subsequently
filed a self-styled motion to modify his sentence for alleged
constitutional violations. Because this self-styled motion
attacks the validity of Scott’s sentence, it amounts to a
successive § 2255 motion. See United States v. Winestock,
340 F.3d 200, 207 (4th Cir. 2003). Scott did not appeal the
district court’s order denying this motion, but, rather, filed a
motion for a certificate of appealability that sought review of
the order denying the motion to modify. Scott has noted a
timely appeal from the district court’s order denying the motion
for a certificate of appealability. We also treat the motion
for a certificate of appealability as a notice of appeal from
the district court’s denial of Scott’s successive § 2255 motion
because it was filed within the time limit allotted for filing a
timely notice of appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B)(i);
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam)
(documents filed by parties proceeding pro se are to be
construed liberally); Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 248 (1992)
(stating that “the notice afforded by a
document . . . determines the document’s sufficiency as a notice
of appeal”).
2
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 Scott 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3