                                     UNPUBLISHED

                        UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                            FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 18-6769


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

ZLJAHUC LOGAN JAMES,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Beaufort.
David C. Norton, District Judge. (9:08-cr-00821-DCN-1; 9:16-cv-02161-DCN)


Submitted: October 15, 2019                                     Decided: October 17, 2019


Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Alicia Vachira Penn, OFFICE OF THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Zljahuc Logan James 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 James has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we remove this appeal from abeyance, * deny James’

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




       *
         We previously placed this appeal in abeyance for No. 15-4433, United States v.
Ali. In light of our recent decision in United States v. Mathis, 932 F.3d 242, 266 (4th Cir.
2019), which disposes of this appeal, we remove this appeal from abeyance.

                                              2
