                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-7045


UNITED STATES AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

CHADRIQUEZ DEVON WILLIAMS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at
Danville. Michael F. Urbanski, Chief District Judge. (4:09-cr-00039-MFU-1; 4:18-cv-
81323-MFU)


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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Chadriquez Devon Williams, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Chadriquez Devon Williams seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive and unauthorized and dismissing it on

that basis. 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 Williams 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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                                DISMISSED




                                              2
