UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 19-6219
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
COREY MCKINZIE HOWARD,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge. (7:08-cr-00023-GEC-1; 7:18-cv-81344-GEC-
PMS)
Submitted: June 13, 2019 Decided: June 18, 2019
Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Cory McKinzie Howard, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Corey McKinzie Howard seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his
motion to compel, which the district court construed as an unauthorized successive 28
U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and its subsequent order denying reconsideration. 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 Howard has not
made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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
2