                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 16-7193


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JACK STEVEN VANLAAR,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:13-cr-00119-CCE-1; 1:15-cv-00958-CCE-LPA)


Submitted:   December 20, 2016             Decided:   December 22, 2016


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and WYNN and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jack Steven Vanlaar, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Hewlett Miller,
Anand   P.   Ramaswamy,   Assistant  United States Attorneys,
Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Jack Steven Vanlaar 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

Vanlaar has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma    pauperis,       and   dismiss    the       appeal.       We    grant    Vanlaar’s

motion to correct his informal brief.                         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
