UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7606


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

JAMES WILBUR FONDREN, JR.,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria.   Claude M. Hilton, Senior
District Judge. (1:09-cr-00263-CMH-1; 1:12-cv-01076-CMH)


Submitted:   April 28, 2015                    Decided:   May 1, 2015


Before GREGORY, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


James Wilbur Fondren, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Stacy M. Chaffin,
Special   Assistant   United  States   Attorney,  William   Neil
Hammerstrom, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, James Philip
Gillis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       James Wilbur Fondren, Jr., 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

Fondren 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