UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7569


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

RANDELL BRICE HARRIS, a/k/a Randall Brice Harris,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Max O. Cogburn, Jr.,
District Judge. (3:94-cr-00012-MOC-2; 3:15-cv-00304-MOC)


Submitted:   January 17, 2017             Decided:   January 20, 2017


Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Randell Brice Harris, Appellant Pro Se.  Elizabeth Margaret
Greenough, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Randell Brice Harris seeks to appeal the district court’s

order and judgment 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

Harris 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