UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7427

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CLARENCE SHELDON JUPITER, a/k/a Star,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (5:93-cr-00004-SGW-1; 5:13-cv-80630-SGW-RSB)

Submitted: January 23, 2014 Decided: January 27, 2014

Before WILKINSON and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Clarence Sheldon Jupiter, Appellant Pro Se. Donald Ray Wolthuis, Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Clarence Sheldon Jupiter seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his “Motion Under

(e)” as a successive

(2012) motion and

dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction and the district court’s

order denying Jupiter’s motion for reconsideration. The orders

are not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a

certificate of appealability.

(c)(1)(B) (2012).

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.”

(c)(2) (2012). 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 Jupiter has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.

2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3