UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                             No. 14-6365


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

COURTNEY OMAR BOYD, a/k/a Omar,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (4:06-cr-00005-MSD-FBS-3; 4:11-cv-00140-MSD)


Submitted:   June 19, 2014                 Decided: June 23, 2014


Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Courtney Omar Boyd, Appellant Pro Se.       Eric Matthew Hurt,
Assistant United States Attorney, Newport News, Virginia; Blair
C. Perez, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk,
Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

              Courtney        Omar    Boyd    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 Boyd 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