                               UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                               No. 16-6044


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

VERONICA LEVONNE JONES,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.  (1:13-cr-00451-WO-1; 1:15-cv-00072-
WO-LPA)


Submitted:   August 18, 2016                 Decided:   August 22, 2016


Before WILKINSON, KING, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Veronica Levonne Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Thomas Inman,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Angela Hewlett Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      Veronica Levonne Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on her 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

Jones 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
