UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                              No. 14-7673


UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

                Plaintiff - Appellee,

          v.

WILLIAM JOE JOHNSON,

                Defendant - Appellant.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Florence. R. Bryan Harwell, District Judge.
(4:10-cr-00941-RBH-8; 4:13-cv-01924-RBH)


Submitted:   March 17, 2015                 Decided:   March 20, 2015


Before WILKINSON and KING, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior
Circuit Judge.


Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


William Joe Johnson, Appellant Pro Se.   Alfred William Walker
Bethea, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Florence, South
Carolina, for Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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

     William Joe Johnson seeks to appeal the district court’s

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion for reconsideration.

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 motion states a debatable claim of the

denial of a constitutional right.                

.

     We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Johnson 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