                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7790


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

SAIPEN CHERDRUM WILLIAMS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. Catherine C. Eagles,
District Judge. (1:04-cr-00315-CCE-1; 1:14-cv-00580-CCE-JLW)


Submitted:   February 23, 2016            Decided:   February 26, 2016



Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Saipen Cherdrum Williams, Appellant Pro Se.   Clifton Thomas
Barrett, Harry L. Hobgood, Angela Hewlett Miller, Assistant
United   States Attorneys, Greensboro,  North Carolina,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Saipen    Cherdrum       Williams       seeks   to    appeal       the     district

court’s order dismissing as untimely her 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

Williams 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




                                           2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3
