UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-7589


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

WADE ROBERT ELLIS,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge.        (3:10-cr-00228-REP-1;
3:11-cv-00827-REP)


Submitted: April 20, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017


Before WILKINSON, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Wade Robert Ellis, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Wu, Assistant United States Attorney,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Wade Robert Ellis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his motion to reconsider. 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 Ellis has not made

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to

proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                              2