                             UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6776


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

PATRICK EARL FRANCIS, a/k/a Jerome Durant Brown,

                Defendant - Appellant.


Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.     Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:94-cr-40106-JLK-4; 7:14-cv-80722-JLK-RSB)


Submitted:   July 29, 2014                 Decided:   August 1, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, WYNN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Patrick Earl Francis, Appellant Pro Se. Ronald Andrew Bassford,
Assistant  United   States  Attorney,  Roanoke,  Virginia,  for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Patrick       Earl   Francis          seeks   to      appeal    the    district

court’s    order    dismissing       as      successive        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 Francis 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
