UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 16-7544


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DAMON EMANUEL ELLIOTT,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.     Peter J. Messitte, Senior District
Judge. (8:97-cr-00053-PJM-1; 8:16-cv-03419-PJM)


Submitted:   January 31, 2017             Decided:   February 3, 2017


Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Damon Emanuel Elliott, Appellant Pro Se. Lindsay Eyler Kaplan,
Assistant United States Attorney, Greenbelt, Maryland, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     Damon Emanuel Elliott seeks to appeal the district court’s

order     dismissing       his    28     U.S.C.     § 2255          (2012)   motion    as

successive and unauthorized.             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

Elliott 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