UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 16-7226
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
STEVEN CHRISTOPHER HARVEY,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:10-cr-00132-MSD-DEM-1; 4:16-cv-00122-MSD)
Submitted: October 14, 2016 Decided: November 3, 2016
Before TRAXLER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Steven Christopher Harvey, Appellant Pro Se. Dee Mullarkey
Sterling, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia;
Megan Cowles, Kristine Elizabeth Wolfe, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Newport News, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Steven Christopher Harvey seeks to appeal the district
court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255
(2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit
justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 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.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that
Harvey 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
2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before
this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
3