UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-6701
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
ISIAH LAND,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca Beach Smith, Chief
District Judge. (2:01-cr-00197-RBS-1)
Submitted: June 5, 2013 Decided: June 14, 2013
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Isiah Land, Appellant Pro Se. James Ashford Metcalfe, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Isiah Land seeks to appeal the district court’s order
treating his motion for a writ of error coram nobis as a
successive 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion, and
dismissing it on that basis. 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 Land has not made the requisite showing. See United States
v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003). 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
DISMISSED
3