UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7326

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MICHAEL PAUL PUZEY,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief District Judge. (3:00-cr-00064-GMG-2; 3:17-cv- 00129-GMG)

Submitted: April 4, 2019 Decided: April 9, 2019

Before NIEMEYER and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Paul Puzey, Appellant Pro Se. Jeffrey Akira Finucane, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

Michael Paul Puzey seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing as successive his

(2012) motion. The order is 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 Puzey has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal. We also deny Puzey’s motion to dismiss the indictment. 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

2