Reginald Mimms, a/k/a Gerald King v. J. GRONDOLSKY, Warden

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 12-6947
REGINALD MIMMS, a/k/a Gerald King,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
J. GRONDOLSKY, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior
District Judge. (7:12-cv-00125-JCT-RSB; 7:00-cr-00022-JCT-RSB-
1; 7:99-cr-00048-JCT-RSB-1)
Submitted: September 27, 2012 Decided: October 2, 2012
Before MOTZ, DAVIS, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Reginald Mimms, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Reginald Mimms seeks to appeal the district court’s
order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2006) petition as a 28
U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2012) motion and denying it for
failure to first obtain authorization from this court to file a
successive § 2255 motion. See 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 2244(b)(2), 2255
(West 2000 & Supp. 2012). The order is not appealable unless a
circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability.
28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2006). 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)
(2006). 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 Mimms has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we
deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We

-- 2 of 3 --

3
dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the
court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED

-- 3 of 3 --