                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7647


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

ANDREW TIMOTHY JONES,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Frank D. Whitney, Chief District Judge. (3:03-cr-00055-FDW-DCK-1;
3:07-cv-00373-FDW)


Submitted: March 12, 2020                                         Decided: March 17, 2020


Before KING, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andrew Timothy Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Andrew Timothy Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his Fed. R.

Civ. P. 60(b) motion for relief from the district court’s prior order denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) 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) (2018). See generally

United States v. McRae, 793 F.3d 392, 400 & n.7 (4th Cir. 2015). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief on the merits,

a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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.

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones 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 contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED



                                              2
