UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-6176


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

ANNE MARIE CHAMBERS, a/k/a Sugar, a/k/a Anne Marie Jack,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:94-cr-00089-REP-RCY-2; 3:16-
cv-00370-REP-RCY)


Submitted: June 22, 2017                                          Decided: June 27, 2017


Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and FLOYD and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Anne Marie Chambers, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Daniel Cooke, Assistant United States
Attorney, David Vincent Harbach, II, Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Anne Marie Chambers seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her 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 Chambers 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