UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7167


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

ELIJAH JEROME WHITE, a/k/a Dice,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Charleston.    Patrick Michael Duffy, Senior
District Judge. (2:98-cr-00455-PMD-4; 2:14-cv-00167-PMD)


Submitted:   December 18, 2014            Decided:   December 23, 2014


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Elijah Jerome White, Appellant Pro Se.  Peter Thomas Phillips,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, South Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Elijah    Jerome     White         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 White has not made the requisite showing.                             Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                                 We

also    deny     White’s    motion      to    seal.         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