UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-7861
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
JERRELL S. CASEY, a/k/a Jerrell Casey, a/k/a Rell,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond. James R. Spencer; John A.
Gibney, Jr., District Judges. (3:09-cr-00282-JRS-1)
Submitted: March 11, 2013 Decided: March 14, 2013
Before DAVIS and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jeremy Brian Gordon, GORDON ALVAREZ, Waxahachie, Texas, for
Appellant. Peter Sinclair Duffey, Gurney Wingate Grant, II,
Assistant United States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Jerrell S. Casey seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012)
motion as successive and denying reconsideration. The orders
are 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 Casey has not made the requisite showing. Cf. United
States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir. 2003). Accordingly,
we deny his motion for a certificate of appealability and
dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the
2
facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before this court and argument would not aid the
decisional process.
DISMISSED
3