UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 14-7743
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
WILLIE ORLANDO MCKINNON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00049-CCB-1; 1:14-cv-03218-CCB)
Submitted: May 21, 2015 Decided: May 26, 2015
Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Willie Orlando McKinnon, Appellant Pro Se. Rod J. Rosenstein,
United States Attorney, Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United
States Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Willie Orlando McKinnon 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
McKinnon has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we
*
We decline to construe McKinnon’s notice of appeal and
informal brief as an application to file a second or successive
§ 2255 motion because McKinnon filed such an application
parallel to this appeal, and this appeal raises no additional
arguments on this issue. See In re Willie McKinnon, No. 15-127
(Continued)
2
deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in
forma 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
(4th Cir. Feb. 27, 2015) (unpublished order denying
application).
3