UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6593


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

FRANK BAILEY,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore.    Richard D. Bennett, District Judge.
(1:07-cr-00559-RDB-1; 1:12-cv-03557-RDB)


Submitted:   October 18, 2016             Decided:   October 27, 2016


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


John J. Korzen, WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY, Winston-Salem, North
Carolina, for Appellant.    Debra Lynn Dwyer, Michael Clayton
Hanlon, Assistant United States Attorneys, Baltimore, Maryland,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Frank Bailey seeks to appeal the district court’s orders

dismissing as time-barred his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and

denying his motion to alter, amend, or otherwise seek relief

from the court’s judgment.           The orders are 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

Bailey 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