UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-7021

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

PRESTON CORNELIUS EVERETT, a/k/a P,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:05-cr-00019-LMB-1)

Submitted: November 2, 2012 Decided: November 7, 2012

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Preston Cornelius Everett, Appellant Pro Se. G. David Hackney, Assistant United States Attorney, Sarah E. Roque, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Preston Cornelius Everett seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his “Motion to Correct” his

sentence. Because Everett sought to challenge his sentence, the

district court construed the action as a successive motion under

(West Supp. 2012) and dismissed the action

because Everett failed to first obtain authorization from this

court to file a successive § 2255 motion.

(h). 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,

.

2 We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Everett 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