                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7278


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JOSEPH RICHARD PERRY, JR.,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior District Judge. (1:99-cr-00041-LO-1; 1:10-cv-
01468-CMH)


Submitted: January 23, 2020                                       Decided: January 28, 2020


Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joseph Richard Perry, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Joseph Richard Perry, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s order finding his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion to be successive and unauthorized, and dismissing it on that

basis. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of

appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). 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, 529 U.S. at 484-85.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Perry has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Perry’s motion to amend his

informal brief, 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




                                              2
