UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 17-6067
ALBERT C. BURGESS, JR.,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen,
Senior District Judge. (1:09-cr-00017-GCM-DLH-1; 1:16-cv-00410-
GCM)
Submitted: March 14, 2017 Decided: March 17, 2017
Before FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford,
Cortney Randall, Edward R. Ryan, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Charlotte, North Carolina, Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Albert Charles Burgess, Jr., 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.
* Burgess filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under
28 U.S.C. § 1651 (2012). The district court construed the
petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 challenging the 2010
criminal judgment entered following Burgess’ convictions under
18 U.S.C. § 2252(a) (2012). On appeal, Burgess does not dispute
that his filing challenged the 2010 criminal judgment.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Burgess 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
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3