UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 17-6251


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

BENJAMIN ROBERT DAVIS,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at
Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, District Judge. (5:11-cr-00311-BO-1; 5:15-cv-00014-BO)


Submitted: May 31, 2018                                           Decided: June 21, 2018


Before MOTZ and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


M. Gordon Widenhouse, Jr., Winston-Salem, North Carolina; Keith Alan Williams,
KEITH A. WILLIAMS, PA, Greenville, North Carolina, for Appellant. Seth Morgan
Wood, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
ATTORNEY, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Benjamin Robert Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motions. The orders are 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 Davis 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