UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 15-6563
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
ANIRUDH LAKHAN SUKHU,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. William D. Quarles, Jr., District
Judge. (1:08-cr-00557-WDQ-1; 1:15-cv-00720-WDQ)
Submitted: August 28, 2015 Decided: September 21, 2015
Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wilkinson,
Assistant United States Attorney, Rachel Miller Yasser, OFFICE
OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Anirudh Lakhan Sukhu seeks to appeal the district court’s
order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion without
prejudice 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
Sukhu has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny
a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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