                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                        No. 18-6278


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

BRIAN EDWARD SCOTT,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. William L. Osteen, Jr., District Judge. (1:11-cr-00236-WO-1; 1:14-cv-
00483-WO-JLW)


Submitted: September 13, 2018                               Decided: September 18, 2018


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian Edward Scott, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Brian Edward Scott seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendations of the magistrate judge to deny relief on Scott’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255

(2012) motion and deny his motion for leave to amend. 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 Scott 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
