UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7021
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB-1)
Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012
Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney,
Assistant United States Attorney, Sarah E. Roque, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Preston Cornelius Everett seeks to appeal the district
court’s order denying relief on his “Motion to Correct” his
sentence. Because Everett 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 Everett 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 Everett 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