UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6962


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

LARRY ANTONIO SIMMONS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior District Judge. (2:10-cr-00653-PMD-1)


Submitted: November 21, 2017                                Decided: November 28, 2017


Before WYNN and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Larry Antonio Simmons, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Larry Antonio Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing

Simmons’ “motion to be resentenced without the [21 U.S.C. §] 851 [(2012)]

enhancement” as a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissing it as a second or

successive § 2255 motion filed without authorization. We conclude that the district court

correctly determined that Simmons’ motion was in substance a successive § 2255 motion.

       The district court’s 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, 

, 484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 

,

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. 

.

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Simmons 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




                                              2
contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                        DISMISSED




                                         3