UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6968


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DARIAN KENDELL ROBINSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Martin K. Reidinger,
District Judge. (1:07-cr-00032-MR-4; 1:14-cv-00058-MR)


Submitted:   November 20, 2014            Decided:   November 25, 2014


Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Darian Kendell Robinson, Appellant Pro Se.        Thomas Richard
Ascik, Amy Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorneys,
John Daren Pritchard, Special Assistant United States Attorney,
Thomas Michael Kent, Jill Westmoreland Rose, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Asheville, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Darian Kendell Robinson seeks to appeal the district

court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as

successive.        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 Robinson 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