                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7327


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

REGINALD LEON SMITH,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:12-cr-00103-RGD-LRL-1; 4:14-cv-00088-RGD)


Submitted:   October 16, 2014             Decided:   October 22, 2014


Before MOTZ, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Reginald Leon Smith, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Pellatiro Tayman,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Reginald       Leon     Smith    seeks      to     appeal       the    district

court’s    order     denying      relief    on    his    28    U.S.C.      § 2255    (2012)

motion.    The 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).             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 Smith has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                       We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                             2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3
