UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-8026

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

JOHNNY WILLIAM COOPER, JR., a/k/a Buck,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District Judge. (3:02-cr-00548-CMC-37)

Submitted: February 26, 2013 Decided: March 1, 2013

Before MOTZ, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Johnny William Cooper, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Mark C. Moore, Jane Barrett Taylor, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Johnny William Cooper, Jr., seeks to appeal the

district court’s order construing his motion to amend his

previously filed

(West Supp. 2012) motion as

a successive and unauthorized § 2255 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 Cooper 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

2 before this court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED

3