UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-8039

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. THOMAS COOK, III, a/k/a Mex, a/k/a Sport, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (6:10-cr-00296-HMH-4; 6:13-cv-03123-HMH)

Submitted: March 25, 2014 Decided: March 28, 2014

Before GREGORY, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Cook, III, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Frank Daley, Jr., Jimmie Ewing, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina; Andrew Burke Moorman, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Carrie Fisher Sherard, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Thomas Cook, III, seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(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, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller–El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336–38 (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, U.S. at 484–85.

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Cook 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 this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED