                            UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7026


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

DERRICK SIMMONS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Spartanburg.   Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior
District Judge. (7:07-cr-00294-HMH-12; 7:16-cv-02004-HMH)


Submitted:   November 22, 2016            Decided:   December 2, 2016


Before WYNN, DIAZ, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derrick Simmons, Appellant Pro Se.        Andrew Burke Moorman,
William Jacob Watkins, Jr., OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Derrick Simmons seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 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

Simmons has not made the requisite showing.                               Accordingly, we

deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, deny a certificate of

appealability 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
