                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7046


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

SAMUEL MANNING,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (4:07-cr-00081-AWA-DEM-2;
4:13-cv-00137-AWA)


Submitted: February 28, 2018                                      Decided: March 7, 2018


Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Samuel Manning, Appellant Pro Se. Eric Matthew Hurt, Brian James Samuels, Assistant
United States Attorneys, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Newport
News, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Samuel Manning seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion to amend the

§ 2255 motion, and denying Manning’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions to alter or amend

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 Manning 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
