                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 15-6664


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

BRIAN GARLAND LANCASTER,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.   Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (4:13-cr-00010-BO-1; 4:14-cv-00238-BO)


Submitted:   August 20, 2015                 Decided:   August 25, 2015



Before DUNCAN, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Brian Garland Lancaster, Appellant Pro Se.               S. Katherine
Burnette, Seth Morgan Wood, OFFICE OF THE               UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Brian     Garland        Lancaster   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

Lancaster 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
