UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7335
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
WAYNE PORTER,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:85-cr-00062-RLV-1; 3:14-cv-00373-RLV)
Submitted: March 19, 2015 Decided: March 24, 2015
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Wayne Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Lee Edwards, Assistant
United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Wayne Porter seeks to appeal the district court’s order
construing his filing as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
dismissing it as successive. * 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
Porter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in forma
*
We reject Porter’s claim that his challenge was cognizable
under former Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a). See United States v.
Little, 392 F.3d 671, 678 (4th Cir. 2004).
2
pauperis, 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