UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7111


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAVID AMEZQUITA-FRANCO,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    Henry E. Hudson, District
Judge. (3:12-cr-00052-HEH-DJN-1; 3:16-cv-00526-HEH)


Submitted:   January 31, 2017             Decided:   February 2, 2017


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


David Amezquita-Franco, Appellant Pro Se.        Stephen David
Schiller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       David Amezquita-Franco 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

Amezquita-Franco           has     not        made       the        requisite         showing.

Accordingly,       we     deny    as     moot      Amezquita-Franco’s            motion      to

expedite, deny a certificate of appealability, and dismiss the

appeal.     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions       are    adequately         presented        in   the    materials

                                              2
before   this   court   and   argument   would   not   aid   the   decisional

process.

                                                                    DISMISSED




                                     3