                             UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 16-6088


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ANDRE L. CORBETT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Robert J. Conrad,
Jr., District Judge. (3:07-cr-00144-RJC-1; 3:13-cv-00298-RJC)


Submitted:   September 15, 2016          Decided:   September 29, 2016


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Andre L. Corbett, Appellant Pro Se. Kimlani M. Ford, Steven R.
Kaufman, Assistant United States Attorneys, Charlotte, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Andre L. Corbett 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

Corbett has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Corbett’s motions for

abeyance and for appointment of counsel, 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
