UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 14-7211


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

MARK LYNN, a/k/a Mark Aaron Lynn,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Richmond.     Robert E. Payne, Senior
District Judge. (3:08-cr-00082-REP-1; 3:11-cv-00585-REP)


Submitted:   February 25, 2015            Decided:    March 3, 2015


Before NIEMEYER, KING, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Mark Lynn, Appellant Pro Se.       Richard Daniel Cooke,    Gurney
Wingate Grant, II, Angela Mastandrea-Miller, Assistant      United
States Attorneys, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

       Mark       Lynn    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

Lynn 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