UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6229
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
JERMAINE LAMONT WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
No. 16-6626
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERMAINE LAMONT WOOD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeals from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:99-cr-00144-JRS-1; 3:14-cv-00455-JRS)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 3, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed in part; affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam
opinion.
Jermaine Lamont Wood, Appellant Pro Se. Peter Sinclair Duffey,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
In Appeal No. 16-6229, Jermaine Wood seeks to appeal the
district court’s order construing his motion to amend as an
unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and
dismissing it on that basis, and a subsequent order denying
reconsideration. The orders are 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
Wood has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
3
In Appeal No. 16-6626, Wood appeals the district court’s
order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as another
successive § 2255 motion. We affirm this order for reasons
stated by the district court. United States v. Wood, Nos. 3:99-
cr-00144-JRS-1; 3:14-cv-00455-JRS (E.D. Va. Mar. 15, 2016). See
United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392 (4th Cir. 2015) (holding
movant need not obtain certificate of appealability to appeal
dismissal of Rule 60(b) motion construed as successive habeas
motion). We grant Wood’s motion to seal his informal brief. 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 IN PART; AFFIRMED IN PART
4