                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7229


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

TERRANCE GERARD MATHIS, a/k/a T-2,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00082-AWA-JEB-5; 2:07-cv-
00449-JBF)


Submitted: January 23, 2020                                       Decided: January 28, 2020


Before WYNN, DIAZ, and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Terrance Gerard Mathis, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Terrance Gerard Mathis seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying as

successive and unauthorized his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The district court’s order

is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018).

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 Mathis 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
