UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6729

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

GREGORY A. MILTON, a/k/a G,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:95-cr-70074-SGW-1)

Submitted: September 29, 2011 Decided: October 5, 2011

Before KING, GREGORY, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gregory A. Milton, Appellant Pro Se. Anthony Paul Giorno, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Gregory A. Milton seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his self-styled “Motion for Equitable Relief

Based on the Unconstitutionality of the AEDPA Successive Habeas

Provisions” as a successive

(West Supp. 2011)

motion, and dismissing it on that basis. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2006).

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,

. We have independently reviewed the record and

conclude that Milton 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

2 and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3