UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7055


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

DENARD EDWARD CARRINGTON, a/k/a Bird,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:09-cr-00160-JRS-1; 3:11-cv-00670-JRS)


Submitted:   November 20, 2014            Decided:   November 25, 2014


Before KING and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Denard Edward Carrington, Appellant Pro Se. Angela Mastandrea-
Miller, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

               Denard Edward Carrington seeks to appeal the district

court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion and granting in part and denying in part his subsequent

Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend judgment.                                     The

orders are       not     appealable       unless      a   circuit      justice    or     judge

issues     a     certificate         of    appealability.               See      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 petition states a

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right.                                

.

               We have independently reviewed the record and conclude

that     Carrington           has    not       made       the        requisite        showing.

Accordingly, we deny Carrington’s motion for a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal.                           We dispense with oral

                                               2
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




                                  3