                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 16-6164


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

VAGAS DAVIS, a/k/a Vegas Gabriel Davis,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:10-cr-00309-HEH-1; 3:13-cv-00617-HEH)


Submitted:   June 23, 2016                   Decided:   June 28, 2016


Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Vagas Davis, Appellant Pro Se.             Angela Mastandrea-Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney,          Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Vagas Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

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

his motion for reconsideration, Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).                                   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

Davis 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



                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
