UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-7588

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

ROBERT MOSES WILKERSON,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Greenville. Malcolm J. Howard, Senior District Judge. (5:96-cr-00167-H-1)

Submitted: February 10, 2011 Decided: February 23, 2011

Before WILKINSON and DAVIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Moses Wilkerson, Appellant Pro Se. Steve R. Matheny, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:

Robert Moses Wilkerson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying his self-styled motion for writ of audit

querela. Because Wilkerson’s motion was a successive and

unauthorized

(West Supp. 2010) motion, see

(h); In re Vial,

(4th Cir.

1997), the district court was obligated to dismiss the motion,

see United States v. Winestock,

(4th Cir.

2003), and the order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability.

(c)(1) (2006); Reid v. Angelone,

(4th Cir. 2004).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent

“a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(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,

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell,

(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,

2 at 484-85. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Wilkerson 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 the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3