                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7382


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

                      Plaintiff - Appellee

v.

VICTOR WILLIAM HARGRAVE, a/k/a David Lee Hargrave

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. James A. Beaty, Jr.,
District Judge. (4:95-cr-00186-JAB-1; 1:12-cv-00989-JAB-JEP)


Submitted:   December 19, 2013            Decided:   December 24, 2013


Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Victor William Hargrave, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Michael
Hamilton,   Angela  Hewlett   Miller,  Assistant   United States
Attorneys, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Victor William Hargrave seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    adopting       the    report     and     recommendation        of   the

magistrate judge, construing Hargrave’s coram nobis petition as

a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion, and dismissing it

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) (2006).                    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) (2006).               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 Hargrave 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
