                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7886


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

ERNEST CARL DARCUS, JR.,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge.    (3:07-cr-00418-REP-RCY-1; 3:12-cv-00840-REP-
RCY)


Submitted:   September 29, 2016           Decided:   October 3, 2016


Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Ernest   Carl    Darcus,  Jr.,   Appellant  Pro   Se.   Angela
Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Ernest    Carl      Darcus,    Jr.,       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

Darcus 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
