UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6187
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
BOBBY RAY HUNT,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (7:09-cr-00034-FL-1; 7:12-cv-00230-FL)
Submitted: June 16, 2016 Decided: June 29, 2016
Before SHEDD and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Bobby Ray Hunt, Appellant Pro Se. Rudy E. Renfer, Assistant
United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Bobby Ray Hunt seeks to appeal the district court’s order
denying relief on 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
Hunt has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We also
deny Hunt’s motion for a limited remand based on the district
court’s indication that it is likely to grant Hunt’s Fed. R.
Civ. P. 60(b) motion challenging the order denying relief on his
2
§ 2255 motion. As that motion seeks to raise a new habeas
claim, it is an unauthorized successive § 2255 motion and the
district court is without jurisdiction to consider it. See
Gonzalez v. Crosby, 545 U.S. 524, 530-32 (2005). 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