                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-7242


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

TRAVIS TYRELL HORTON, a/k/a T-Ho,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Newport News. Rebecca Beach Smith, Senior District Judge. (4:08-cr-00144-RBS-10;
4:16-cv-00067-RBS)


Submitted: September 24, 2019                               Decided: September 26, 2019


Before WYNN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Travis Tyrell Horton, Appellant Pro Se. Aidan Taft Grano, Assistant United States
Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Travis Horton 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 Horton has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We deny as moot Horton’s motion for transcripts. 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
