UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-7372


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                 Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARCUS ROBERT WILLIAMS,

                 Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.     Louise W. Flanagan,
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00259-FL-2; 5:15-cv-00408-FL)


Submitted:   December 15, 2015             Decided:    December 18, 2015


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Marcus Robert Williams, Appellant Pro Se.    Jane J. Jackson,
Jennifer P. May-Parker, Assistant United States Attorneys,
Michael Gordon James, Kimberly Ann Moore, Seth Morgan Wood,
OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Marcus Robert Williams 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

Williams 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