                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6365


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

SAMUEL PIERRE,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior District Judge. (2:16-cr-00069-RGD-DEM-1; 2:17-
cv-00208-RGD)


Submitted: July 26, 2018                                          Decided: July 31, 2018


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, FLOYD, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Samuel Pierre, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Samuel Pierre 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 Pierre 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
