UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7381


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Respondent - Appellee,

          v.

SHANNON DERRELL WILLIAMS, a/k/a Doe,

                Petitioner - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.    James R. Spencer, Senior
District Judge. (3:02-cr-00085-JRS-1)


Submitted:   December 18, 2014            Decided:   December 23, 2014


Before SHEDD, WYNN, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Shannon Derrell Williams, Appellant Pro Se.      David Thomas
Maguire, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia,
for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

             Shannon Derrell Williams seeks to appeal the district

court’s    order    construing        his   petition     for       a   writ    of    audita

querela as a successive and unauthorized 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012)

motion.     The district court’s 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 Williams 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