                                     UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 19-7569


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

GREGORY JAMES BURGESS,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief District Judge. (5:13-cr-00099-BO-2; 5:16-cv-00479-
BO)


Submitted: February 20, 2020                                  Decided: February 25, 2020


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gregory James Burgess, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Gregory James Burgess seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2018). 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) (2018). When the district court denies relief

on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists

would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong.

See Buck v. Davis, 137 S. Ct. 759, 773-74 (2017). 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. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Burgess has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny Burgess’

motion to appoint counsel, 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




                                             2
