UNPUBLISHED

                   UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                       FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 15-7409


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KENNETH WAYNE GOODE,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.      Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:06-cr-00081-BO-1; 5:12-cv-00345-BO)


Submitted:   January 15, 2016              Decided:   February 10, 2016


Before SHEDD and    AGEE,   Circuit   Judges,   and   HAMILTON,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth Wayne Goode, Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Kenneth Wayne Goode seeks to appeal the district court’s

order treating his Fed. R. Crim. P. 36 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.              See     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

Goode has not made the requisite showing.                     See United States v.

Winestock, 

, 208 (4th Cir. 2003).                         Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in

forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal.                      We dispense with oral

                                            2
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3