UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6973
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ROBERT LEE WINFIELD, JR., a/k/a Tubbs,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (2:95-cr-00193-REP-1; 2:12-cv-00180-REP)
Submitted: July 19, 2012 Decided: July 26, 2012
Before DUNCAN, AGEE, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro
Tayman, Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Robert Lee Winfield, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing his “MOTION UNDER THE ALL WRITS ACT
PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1651 AND/OR FEDERAL RULES OF CIVL [sic]
PROCEDURE, RULE 60(b) AND/OR NUNC PRO TUNC” pursuant to 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) and dismissing it as
successive. 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Winfield has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,
we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
2
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