                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 13-7661


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CHESTER EUGENE DOWNING,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Elizabeth City.    James C. Fox,
Senior District Judge. (2:08-cr-00016-F-2; 2:11-cv-00057-F)


Submitted:   February 19, 2014             Decided:   February 25, 2014


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chester Eugene Downing, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-
Parker, Assistant United States Attorney, Tobin Webb Lathan,
Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Chester Eugene Downing seeks to appeal the district

court’s order construing his Motion to Dismiss Count Three as a

motion    under    28    U.S.C.    § 2255        (2012)     and    dismissing       it   as

successive.        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 Downing 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
