UNPUBLISHED

                    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                        FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                No. 15-7910


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

GERALD LEE BANKS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Greenville. James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (4:11-cr-00034-F-2; 4:14-cv-00014-F)


Submitted:   February 25, 2016                 Decided:    March 2, 2016


Before SHEDD and      HARRIS,    Circuit   Judges,   and   DAVIS,   Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Gerald Lee Banks, Appellant Pro Se.    Jennifer P. May-Parker,
Assistant United States Attorney, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      Gerald Lee Banks 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

Banks 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