UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 13-6916


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

LAVERN JUNIOR JACOBS,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,
District Judge. (3:04-cr-00277-RLV-DCK-1; 3:13-cv-00263-RLV)


Submitted:   December 20, 2013            Decided:   January 8, 2014


Before NIEMEYER and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Lavern Junior Jacobs, Appellant Pro Se. William Michael Miller,
Assistant United States Attorney, Keith Michael Cave, OFFICE OF
THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina; Amy
Elizabeth Ray, Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville,
North Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

            Lavern       Junior    Jacobs        seeks   to     appeal     the   district

court’s order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C.A. § 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) (2006).                   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) (2006).                 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 Jacobs 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




                                             2
contentions   are   adequately   presented   in   the   materials   before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.



                                                               DISMISSED




                                   3