                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7396


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DERRICK LEVON PLATT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:09-cr-01146-RBH-1; 4:15-cv-03207-RBH)


Submitted:   November 19, 2015            Decided:   November 24, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Derrick Levon Platt, Appellant Pro Se.   Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Derrick Levon Platt seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing        his    28    U.S.C.     § 2255          (2012)   motion    as

successive, and the court’s order denying his 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

Platt 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     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
