UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-6766


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                       Plaintiff – Appellee,

          v.

MARCELLUS THOMAS,

                       Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle
District of North Carolina, at Greensboro.   William L. Osteen,
Jr., Chief District Judge.  (1:08-cr-00003-WO-1; 1:11-cv-01007-
WO-JLW)


Submitted:   September 9, 2015         Decided:   September 14, 2015


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcellus Thomas, Appellant Pro Se. Harry L. Hobgood, Angela
Hewlett Miller, Assistant United States Attorneys, Greensboro,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Marcellus Thomas seeks to appeal the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and 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

Thomas has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we deny

Thomas’s request for 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

                                               2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.



                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3