                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-6495


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

MICHAEL ANTHONY JONES, a/k/a Spunk,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00099-FL-1; 5:19-cv-00022-FL)


Submitted: August 22, 2019                                        Decided: August 26, 2019


Before KING and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Michael Anthony Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Michael Anthony Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive. 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 Jones has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, although we grant Jones’ motions for leave to

amend his informal brief and to supplement the record, 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
