UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 16-6737


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

KENNETH WAYNE MONROE,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.   W. Earl Britt, Senior
District Judge. (5:07-cr-00093-BR-1; 5:16-cv-00184-BR)


Submitted:   July 28, 2016                   Decided:    August 2, 2016


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Kenneth Wayne Monroe, Appellant Pro Se.   Jason Harris Cowley,
Assistant United States Attorney, James J. Kurosad, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Kenneth Wayne Monroe 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

Monroe has not made the requisite showing.                         Accordingly, we deny

a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal.                             We deny

Monroe’s    motion        to    expedite     decision     and      dispense   with     oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately



                                              2
presented in the materials before this court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.



                                                      DISMISSED




                                  3