                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-7938


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ANTWAN LAMAR JACKSON, a/k/a Twan, a/k/a Mey-Mey,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior
District Judge. (3:10-cr-00033-NKM-RSB-1; 3:14-cv-80732-NKM-RSB)


Submitted:   April 19, 2016                 Decided:   April 21, 2016


Before AGEE, DIAZ, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Antwan Lamar Jackson, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Mitchell Huber,
Jean   Barrett  Hudson,   Assistant   United States Attorneys,
Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Antwan Lamar Jackson 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

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

Jackson’s motions for 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
