UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-7152


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

VINCENT HERNANDEZ, a/k/a Vin Rock, a/k/a Barrack,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.     J. Frederick Motz, Senior District
Judge. (1:10-cr-00266-JFM-3; 1:15-cv-00802-JFM)


Submitted:   December 15, 2015             Decided:    December 17, 2015


Before GREGORY    and   FLOYD,   Circuit   Judges,    and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Vincent Hernandez, Appellant Pro Se.  Anthony Joseph Enright,
Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina,
Joshua Thomas Ferrentino, Assistant United States Attorney,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Vincent        Hernandez     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

Hernandez 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