                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6829


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JAMES ROCKETT, III, a/k/a James Rocket, a/k/a James Rockett,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00135-MSD-JEB-1; 2:16-cv-00314-
MSD)


Submitted: December 8, 2017                                 Decided: December 15, 2017


Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Rockett, III, Appellant Pro Se. Darryl James Mitchell, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Rockett, III, 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. See 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 Rockett 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

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

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED




                                              2
