                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-6634


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMES RICHARD HACKLEY, IV, a/k/a J.R., a/k/a Baby J,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg.    Glen E. Conrad, Chief
District Judge. (5:09-cr-00018-GEC-1; 5:13-cv-80649-GEC-RSB)


Submitted:   September 9, 2015           Decided:   September 11, 2015


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Richard Hackley, IV, Appellant Pro Se.          Ronald Mitchell
Huber,   Assistant United  States   Attorney,        Charlottesville,
Virginia.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Richard Hackley, IV, 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

Hackley 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
