US v. Dwayne Ro

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 3:09-cr-00714-CMC-1. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999385682]. Mailed to: Dwayne Ross. [14-6394]

Appeal: 14-6394

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-6394

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
v.
DWAYNE RODERICK ROSS,
Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.
Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00714-CMC-1)

Submitted:

June 26, 2014

Decided:

June 30, 2014

Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Dwayne Roderick Ross, Appellant Pro Se. James Hunter May, John
C. Potterfield, Stanley D. Ragsdale, Assistant United States
Attorneys, James Chris Leventis, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 14-6394

Doc: 5

Filed: 06/30/2014

Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:
Dwayne Roderick Ross seeks to appeal from the district
court’s order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion as a
28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it as successive.
The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge
issues

a

certificate

§ 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012).
issue

absent

“a

of

appealability.

U.S.C.

A certificate of appealability will not

substantial

constitutional right.”

28

showing

of

the

denial

28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012).

of

a

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

Cockrell,

(2000);

(2003).

see

Miller-El

v.

537

U.S.

322,

336-38

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,

529 U.S. at 484-85.
We have independently reviewed the record and conclude
that Ross has not made the requisite showing.

Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.
dispense

with

oral

argument

because

2

the

facts

and

We

legal

Appeal: 14-6394

Doc: 5

contentions

Filed: 06/30/2014

are

adequately

Pg: 3 of 3

presented

in

the

materials

before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

3