                              UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 15-7812


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JOAN MARSH, a/k/a Joan Henry,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:11-cr-00128-HEH-RCY-2; 3:13-cv-00277-HEH-RCY)


Submitted:   April 21, 2016                 Decided:   April 25, 2016


Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Joan Marsh, Appellant Pro Se. Jamie L. Mickelson, Assistant United
States Attorney, Atlanta, Georgia; Michael Calvin Moore, Assistant
United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Joan Marsh seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying

relief on her 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion.         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

Marsh 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
