UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7765
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
REGINALD ANTHONY FALICE,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (3:98-cr-00244-GCM-1; 3:14-cv-00640-GCM)
Submitted: April 16, 2015 Decided: April 20, 2015
Before AGEE and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Anthony Falice, Appellant Pro Se. Sidney P. Alexander,
Assistant United States Attorney, Paul Brad Taylor, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina; Gretchen
C. F. Shappert, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington,
D.C., for the Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Anthony Falice 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
Falice has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability, deny permission to proceed in
forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would
not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3