                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 16-7003


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

             Plaintiff – Appellee,

              v.

RODERICK MARCELL AVENT,

             Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. James C. Dever, III, Chief District Judge. (5:14-cr-00274-D-1; 5:15-cv-00559-
D)


Submitted: March 30, 2017                                          Decided: April 3, 2017


Before TRAXLER and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Roderick Marcell Avent, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United
States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Roderick Marcell Avent 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 Avent has not made

the requisite showing. Avent’s claim is without merit in light of Beckles v. United States,

__ U.S. __, No. 15-8544, 2017 WL 855781 (U.S. Mar. 6, 2017). Accordingly, we deny a

certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. We further deny Avent’s motion for

appointment of counsel. 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
