UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-6480
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
RICHARD ALLEN SMITH, JR., a/k/a Smitty,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr.,
Senior District Judge. (2:00-cr-00007-FPS-JES-1)
Submitted: September 29, 2016 Decided: October 4, 2016
Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard Allen Smith, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Donald
Warner, Assistant United States Attorney, Elkins, West Virginia,
for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Richard Allen Smith, Jr., seeks to appeal the district
court’s order construing Smith’s self-styled “Motion to Compel
the Release of Exculpatory Documents” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion and denying the motion as successive and without
this court’s authorization. The order is not appealable unless
a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of
appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). 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)
(2012). 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
Smith has not made the requisite showing. * Accordingly, we deny
Smith’s motion to appoint counsel, 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
* Moreover, we reject Smith’s invitation to construe his
motion to compel as a petition for mandamus.
3