UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-7531


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

OWEN ODDMAN, a/k/a Star,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Shelby.     Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (4:96-cr-00053-MR-1; 1:13-cv-00128-MR)


Submitted:   February 20, 2014            Decided:   February 25, 2014


Before DUNCAN, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Owen Oddman, Appellant Pro Se.      Richard Lee Edwards, Amy
Elizabeth   Ray,  Assistant  United  States  Attorneys,   Jill
Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Asheville, North Carolina; Adam Christopher Morris, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Owen Oddman seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing as successive 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, 

,

484    (2000);     see    Miller-El   v.   Cockrell,     

,    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.                        

.

            We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that Oddman 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