                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 18-7047


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

ANES SUBASIC, a/k/a Mladen Subasic,

              Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:09-cr-00216-FL-3; 5:16-cv-00089-FL)


Submitted: November 15, 2018                                Decided: November 20, 2018


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anes Subasic, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Anes Subasic seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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 Subasic has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Subasic’s motion for 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
