                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7255


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DUSHAWN LEVERT GARDNER, a/k/a Michael Archer, a/k/a Black,
a/k/a Shawn,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville.   Malcolm J. Howard,
Senior District Judge. (4:95-cr-00041-H-5; 4:16-cv-00176-H)


Submitted:   January 31, 2017             Decided:   February 3, 2017


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dushawn Levert Gardner, Appellant Pro Se.    Jennifer P. May-
Parker,   Assistant  United States Attorney,   Raleigh, North
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dushawn Levert Gardner seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as successive 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

Gardner 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
