UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-6632


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAVID NEIL PHILLIPS, a/k/a Neil Phillips,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.    James C. Fox, Senior
District Judge. (5:12-cr-00236-F-1; 5:15-cv-00435-F)


Submitted:   November 10, 2016            Decided:   January 6, 2017


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

      David Neil Phillips 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

Phillips 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