                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-6259


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

MICHAEL R. JACKSON,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     John A. Gibney, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:93-cr-00125-JAG-1)


Submitted:   August 20, 2015                 Decided: August 24, 2015


Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael R. Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Michael R. Jackson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     denying       his     Fed.     R.       Civ.    P.      60(b)     motion    for

reconsideration of 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)

(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, 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

Jackson has not made the requisite showing.                            Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                            We

grant Jackson’s motion to file an amended brief.                            We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are

                                              2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                DISMISSED




                                     3
