UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 15-7168


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:15-cv-01892-PJM)


Submitted:   October 15, 2015             Decided:   October 20, 2015


Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

        Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his “actual innocence” motion as a successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.

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

Elliott has not made the requisite showing.                              Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny Elliott’s motion for

the appointment of counsel, 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