UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                       No. 18-6008


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                     Plaintiff - Appellee,

              v.

BRYAN COATS,

                     Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at
Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:11-cr-00309-RJC-1; 3:17-cv-00658-
RJC)


Submitted: April 27, 2018                                         Decided: June 28, 2018


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


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Bryan Coats, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Bryan Coats seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing his 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 Coats 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