UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 17-7517


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

HENRY PAUL RICHARDSON, a/k/a Packer,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Henry E. Hudson, District Judge. (3:06-cr-00106-HEH-1; 3:17-cv-00732-
HEH)


Submitted: March 29, 2018                                         Decided: April 3, 2018


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Henry Paul Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Gurney Wingate Grant, II, Assistant United
States Attorney, Brian R. Hood, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY,
Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Henry Paul Richardson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his

untimely Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion challenging the dismissal of his unauthorized 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and denial of his motion to amend. He also seeks to appeal

that part of the court’s order denying his motions to stay the mandate and stay the appeal

period. 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 Richardson has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability, deny

leave to proceed in forma pauperis, 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