UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-7100


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                        Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

STEVEN JERMONTE CURETON, a/k/a Rollo,

                        Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte.     Frank D. Whitney,
Chief District Judge. (3:07-cr-00061-FDW-14; 3:14-cv-00281-FDW)


Submitted:   September 23, 2014         Decided:   September 26, 2014


Before NIEMEYER and      GREGORY,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,
Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Steven Jermonte Cureton, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Steven Jermonte Cureton 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, 

,

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 Cureton has not made the requisite showing.                          The district

court lacked jurisdiction to consider Cureton’s motion to vacate

because it was a successive and unauthorized § 2255 motion.                            In

the absence of pre-filing authorization from this court, the

district court lacks jurisdiction to hear a successive § 2255

                                           2
motion.    See 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3) (2012).             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




                                      3