UNPUBLISHED

                       UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                           FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                                      No. 18-6988


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                    Plaintiff - Appellee,

             v.

RAYMOND DAVID WILSON,

                    Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at
Charleston. David C. Norton, District Judge. (2:05-cr-00279-DCN-1; 2:14-cv-02467-
DCN)


Submitted: August 27, 2019                                   Decided: September 4, 2019


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Raymond David Wilson, Appellant Pro Se.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Raymond David Wilson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on

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

the requisite showing.     Accordingly, we deny Wilson’s motions for a certificate of

appealability and to correct his sentence 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