UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7395

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

JOSE ANGEL PEREZ, a/k/a Angel,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. James C. Fox, Senior District Judge. (7:93-cr-00026-F-1)

Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013

Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Jose Angel Perez, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Jose Angel Perez seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion to reconsider its

order treating his previous Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a

successive

(West Supp. 2013) 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 Perez 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

2 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3