UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6170


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

JIMMIE TROUTMAN,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
Catherine C. Blake, Chief District Judge. (1:04-cr-00144-CCB-1; 1:14-cv-03241-CCB)


Submitted: April 25, 2017                                         Decided: April 28, 2017


Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Jimmie Troutman, Appellant Pro Se. Michael Clayton Hanlon, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Jimmie Troutman seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on his

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denying his subsequent Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e)

motion. 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 Troutman 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

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument

would not aid the decisional process.

                                                                               DISMISSED




                                             2