UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-7386


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

MERVYN A. PHELAN, SR.,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore.
James K. Bredar, Chief District Judge. (1:12-cr-00103-JKB-2; 1:16-cv-00288-JKB)


Submitted: March 13, 2019                                         Decided: April 2, 2019


Before KEENAN and HARRIS, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mervyn A. Phelan, Sr., Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Mervyn A. Phelan, Sr., seeks to appeal the district court’s orders denying relief on

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion. 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 Phelan has not

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

dismiss the appeal. We deny Phelan’s motion to appoint counsel and 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