UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6775


DAVID ELLIS,

                Petitioner - Appellant,

          v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Dever, III,
Chief District Judge. (5:12-cr-00208-D-1; 5:15-cv-00268-D)


Submitted:   October 13, 2016             Decided:   October 18, 2016


Before NIEMEYER, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Ellis, 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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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:

      David    Ellis       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

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

a   certificate       of    appealability,            deny      Ellis’      motion     for    the

appointment of counsel, and dismiss the appeal.                                  We dispense

with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are



                                                2
adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before   this   court   and

argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                                DISMISSED




                                     3