                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-6452


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                      Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

JOHN FITZGERALD LEGRAND,

                      Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     Catherine C. Blake, Chief District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00052-CCB-1; 1:14-cv-00087-CCB)


Submitted:   December 17, 2015            Decided:   December 21, 2015


Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John Fitzgerald Legrand, Appellant Pro Se. Paul E. Budlow,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       John    Fitzgerald       Legrand     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

Legrand 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
