UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7243


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

PAUL ALONZO EWING,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Norfolk. Arenda L. Wright Allen, District Judge. (2:09-cr-00083-AWA-TEM-1;
2:12-cv-00687-AWA)


Submitted: January 18, 2018                                       Decided: January 26, 2018


Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Paul Alonzo Ewing, Appellant Pro Se. Charles Dee Griffith, Jr., Newport News, Virginia,
Melissa Elaine O’Boyle, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED
STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Paul Alonzo Ewing seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his

“Complaint for Release from Plea Agreement” as an unauthorized successive 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2012) motion and denying it for lack of jurisdiction. 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 Ewing 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