UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-7029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

DON EDDLON KNOX, a/k/a D,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:97-cr-00262-REP-11; 3:11-cv-00440-REP)

Submitted: December 20, 2011 Decided: December 23, 2011

Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Don Eddlon Knox, Appellant Pro Se. James Brien Comey, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia; John Staige Davis, V, WILLIAMS MULLEN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Don Eddlon Knox seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing in part his “Motion for Relief Pursuant to

[,]

, 2201, 2202 and Appendix,” as

a successive

(West Supp. 2011) motion. 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 Knox has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

2 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

* To the extent Knox appeals the district court’s denial of his motions pursuant to

(c)(2) (2006) and

, 2201, 2201 (2006), we find no reversible error and affirm for the reasons stated by the district court.

3