UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-6986
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
SEAN LAMONT DUDLEY, a/k/a John D. Brown,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:97-cr-00001-RLV-1; 5:14-cv-00073-
RLV)
Submitted: November 20, 2014 Decided: November 25, 2014
Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part and dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Sean Lamont Dudley, Appellant Pro Se. Robert J. Higdon, Jr.,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Sean Lamont Dudley, a federal prisoner, seeks to
appeal the district court’s order dismissing his self-styled
“Motion to Correct Sentence Due to Intervening Change in Circuit
Law[.]” In the motion, Dudley asserted he was entitled to
relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012), and alternatively, through
a writ of audita querela, under the All Writs Act, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1651 (2012), or pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b). Having
reviewed the record, we affirm the district court’s denial of
audita querela relief. See United States v. Dudley, Nos. 5:97-
cr-00001-RLV-1, 5:14-cv-00073-RLV (W.D.N.C. June 10, 2014).
To the extent the district court dismissed Dudley’s
motion as an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion, that portion
of 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
2
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 Dudley has not made the requisite showing.
Accordingly, we affirm in part, and deny a certificate
of appealability and dismiss the appeal 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