UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6412
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JOHN MARK RICHARDSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (1:04-cr-00090-NCT-1; 1:11-cv-
00688-NCT-JEP)
Submitted: June 21, 2012 Decided: June 26, 2012
Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
John Mark Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
John Mark Richardson seeks to appeal the district
court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate
judge and denying relief on his “Rule 36 Violation.” Because
Richardson sought to challenge his sentence, the district court
construed the action as a successive motion under 28 U.S.C.A.
§ 2255 (West Supp. 2012) and dismissed the action because
Richardson failed to first obtain authorization from this court
to file a successive § 2255 motion. 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255(h). The
order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues
a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B)
(2006). 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) (2006). 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.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Richardson 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3