UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 16-6305


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff – Appellee,

             v.

TRAVIS LAMONT FOOTE, a/k/a Cash,

                    Defendant – Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, District Judge. (1:14-cr-00015-JKB-1; 1:15-cv-03168-JKB)


Submitted: April 20, 2017                                         Decided: May 1, 2017


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, KEENAN, Circuit Judge, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Travis Lamont Foote, Appellant Pro Se. Judson T. Mihok, Assistant United States
Attorney, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Travis Lamont Foote seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 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 Foote 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




       *
         We remanded this case to the district court for the limited purpose of determining
whether Foote demonstrated excusable neglect or good cause warranting an extension of
the 60-day appeal period. The district court found that an extension was warranted, and
the case is now back before us.


                                             2
adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the

decisional process.

                                                                         DISMISSED




                                          3