UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6193


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; 8:17-cv-00086-PJM)


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


Before MOTZ, DUNCAN, and AGEE, 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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 further deny Elliott’s motion for appointment of counsel. 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