UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 19-7600


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

DACEY MAURICE JONES,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at
Greensboro. Thomas D. Schroeder, Chief District Judge. (1:13-cr-00405-TDS-1; 1:16-
cv-00198-TDS-LPA)


Submitted: June 29, 2020                                           Decided: July 8, 2020


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Dacey Maurice Jones, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Dacey Maurice Jones seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the

recommendation of the magistrate judge, dismissing Jones’ 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2018)

motion as time-barred, and denying Jones’ motions to amend. See Whiteside v. United

States, 

, 182-83 (4th Cir. 2014) (en banc) (explaining that § 2255 motions are

subject to one-year statute of limitations, running from latest of four commencement dates

enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f)). The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or

judge issues a certificate of appealability. 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, as here, 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, 

, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v.

McDaniel, 

, 484 (2000)).

       We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Jones 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 contentions are

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                                 DISMISSED




                                              2