UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 20-6644


JOHN MCCOMBS,

                    Petitioner - Appellant,

             v.

STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

                    Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. R. Bryan Harwell, Chief District Judge. (2:19-cv-01086-RBH)


Submitted: September 17, 2020                                 Decided: October 13, 2020


Before HARRIS and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John McCombs, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       John McCombs seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion to

amend his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A). 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). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a

petitioner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v.

Davis, 

, 773-74). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds,

the petitioner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable and

that the petition 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 McCombs 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