UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6025
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff – Appellee,
v.
DAVID GLENN GREEN,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L.
Voorhees, District Judge. (5:00-cr-00034-RLV-1); Graham C.
Mullen, Senior District Judge. (5:05-cv-00205-GCM)
Submitted: May 23, 2013 Decided: May 28, 2013
Before MOTZ and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
David Glenn Green, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray,
Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
David Glenn Green seeks to appeal the district court’s
orders denying relief on his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion for
reconsideration of his conviction and his subsequent motion for
reconsideration. The district court correctly ruled that the
relief that Green sought was only available by way of a 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion. Finding that Green
had already filed a § 2255 motion, the district court denied his
motion as successive. 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.
2
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Green 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
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3