                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-6778


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOHN MARQUIS JOHNSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:08-cr-01258-RBH-5; 4:14-cv-01584-RBH)


Submitted:   October 29, 2015             Decided:   November 10, 2015


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Marquis Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.     Robert Frank Daley,
Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       John Marquis Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the

judgment.        The     orders    are    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

Johnson has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we

deny Johnson’s motion for a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal.          We dispense with oral argument because the



                                              2
facts   and   legal    contentions    are   adequately   presented     in   the

materials     before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.



                                                                     DISMISSED




                                       3
