                               UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-6850


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

CURTIS ARNOLD,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.    Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge.   (3:05-cr-00046-RJC-DSC-2; 3:10-cv-00453-
RJC)


Submitted:   August 20, 2015                 Decided:   August 25, 2015



Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Curtis Arnold, Appellant Pro Se. Thomas A. O’Malley, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Curtis Arnold 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) (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

Arnold has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we deny

Arnold’s motion for transcripts at Government expense, 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
