UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7501

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

FREDERICK ABRAHAM MCKENZIE, a/k/a Camron Darnell Lewis, a/k/a Jamaican Vince, a/k/a Vince,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District Judge. (4:04-cr-00556-TLW-1; 4:13-cv-00667-TLW)

Submitted: November 21, 2013 Decided: November 26, 2013

Before KING, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Frederick Abraham McKenzie, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Frederick Abraham McKenzie seeks to appeal the

district court’s order dismissing as successive his

(West Supp. 2013) 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 McKenzie has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny McKenzie’s motion for appointment of counsel, 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