UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-6862


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

CHRISTOPHER J. RUFFIN,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:09-cr-00335-HEH-1; 3:12-cv-00432-HEH)


Submitted:   November 20, 2014            Decided:   November 26, 2014


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Christopher J. Ruffin, Appellant Pro Se. Stephen Wiley Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Christopher         J.    Ruffin      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 Ruffin 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