                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7821


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

TREADWAY LEVON MANNING, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence.     Cameron McGowan Currie, Senior
District Judge. (4:97-cr-00323-CMC-1; 4:15-cv-04354-CMC)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Treadway Levon Manning, Appellant Pro Se. Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Treadway Levon Manning, Jr., seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    dismissing       as     successive     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

Manning has not made the requisite showing.                       Accordingly, we

deny Manning’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



                                             2
materials   before   this   court   and   argument   would   not    aid   the

decisional process.

                                                                   DISMISSED




                                    3
