UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7167
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ELIJAH JEROME WHITE, a/k/a Dice,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:98-cr-00455-PMD-4; 2:14-cv-00167-PMD)
Submitted: December 18, 2014 Decided: December 23, 2014
Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Elijah Jerome White, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Thomas Phillips,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Elijah Jerome White seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive his 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 White has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We
also deny White’s motion to seal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3