                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7210


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ROBERT JAMES PEARSON WHITE, a/k/a RJ,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Columbia.     Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (3:11-cr-02303-CMC-1; 3:14-cv-04436-CMC)


Submitted:   December 17, 2015            Decided:   December 22, 2015


Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Robert James Pearson White, Appellant Pro Se. Stanley D.
Ragsdale, Julius Ness Richardson, Assistant United States
Attorneys, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Robert James Pearson White 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

White 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
