                                    UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-7055


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

GILBERTO RAMOS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:12-cr-00224-LMB-1; 1:18-cv-
00152-LMB)


Submitted: February 28, 2019                                      Decided: March 19, 2019


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Milena Nelson Blake, STANFORD UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, Stanford,
California, for Appellant.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Gilberto Ramos 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 Ramos has not

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

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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
