UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-7531


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

EARL EDWARD WEBB, a/k/a E,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:98-cr-00037-F-20; 5:15-cv-00403-F)


Submitted:   December 17, 2015             Decided:   December 22, 2015



Before DIAZ and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Earl Edward Webb, Appellant Pro Se. Shailika S. Kotiya, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

       Earl Edward Webb seeks to appeal the district court’s order

dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion as successive.

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

Webb 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